tv U.S. Senate CSPAN March 22, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
>> whether you are southern or western, suburban, or exurban, how can we ensure that all consumers regardless of where they are, who are they, will have access to some of the great technologies that you've stated we'll see in the future, but i want to ensure that they are wildly available, not just available, but affordable. >> one aspect of that, mark was talking about the 1/3 of the population don't have broadband today. the truth is only about 5 or 6% of the people can't really get broadband. it's just not available to the 5 or 6%. the other people haven't adopted it. part of it why they are not adopting it. part of it is can we get it to everybody else. on the lge which is next generation wireless. we are going to deploy it and 100 people could get it and by the end of 2014, it should be
available to the entire population. there are areas we know we can't deploy to. in those areas we have a program called the lte rule work. we are going to negotiate with rural carriers, most of the time rural cellar carriers and using the spectrum that we have for the roll out of 4g, and we call it the facilities, the network that takes it from the wireless tower and out to other consumers. building that out is very expensive. in exchange, they would have to get access to build a tower. they could use the spectrum. we would roam on theirs, they could roam on ours. we have -- i don't know how many agreements. i think it's five or six. we are negotiating with a lot of other people in rural areas to try to make it happen. that's one way to get it out
there. as mark said, it's a lot more efficient to do that than trying to put wires in place. on the adoption, it's more complex. i was at a focus group a few years ago. these are all dial-up customers. we asked them why nay didn't adopt the technology. certainly some of them said cost, although when you probe, they already buy cable and television and so forth, they said adding this on top makes it expensive. bundling. can we make bundles that are cheaper to get access to all of it. i think another part of it, a lot of people said when my child gets into grade school, i'm going to get broadband. right now they don't see the need, but they will because of factors. and clearly because they don't use the technology, because their jobs don't require it or they don't have access to it when they work, they are not used to it. they have dial-up because they don't see the rest of the internet being that valuable.
part of the challenge is make sure the people know how to use it, but actually find there's value behind using e-mail. that's why broadband would be valuable to them. >> there was wonderful work done at the fcc when they were developing the broadband plan that divided the nonbroadband user population into four cohorts. it was essentially user or nonuser session -- segmentation, there's a cohort of about 10% of the population that are not users are primed to go. something has happened in their life where the computer is broken, they can't afford at the moment, an isp, but they have history on the internet, they enjoy broadband in the past, other members of their family are accomplished technology users, so they are ready to go when the life circumstances change. at the other end of the spectrum, and an equal number are sort of deeply weary.
they don't see the relevance of these technologies. they know the stuff they have, and the plain telephone and material in their home and news sources they use through traditional media gives them the sources that they want. often when you talk to them though, they are more aware of the problems that have been associated with the internet. predators, stalkers, people who are going to steal your identity. they are worried about the technology itself. if they hit the wrong key, they are going to blow up $1,000 machine. they don't have nearly as much sense that high-quality news, great medical information, interactions with government are facilitated by the certification. in many cases, educational problems, hand holding, mentoring, text support, and those kind of things are essential parts of convincing that cohort there's a value proposition for them.
>> i want to build on sort of two of those points. one has to do with the access issue. and then again i'm going to sort of answer a little further out into the future. but one of the things that we think about in computing is how to do things more efficiently. one the thing that is we do in the area of spectrum is how do we start to think about technologies that use the white spaces between tv bands, but also who can even further forward, how can we come up with technologies in the phrase that we use is smart radios. but that communication that allow us to jump into the various unused areas of the spectrum in ways that make their -- they are invisible. and if successful technology that is invisible, that are invisible to the user, but are incredibly efficient uses of the spectrum. think about those things. to take it back to the policy
question. making sure as we do things with the fcc and make policy decisions now we don't lock things down and constrain those technologies and develop new capabilities, we won't be able to deploy them and use them to take advantage of future efficiencies that we can necessarily do now. that's one thing that has to do with access. another thing is usability. there have been a couple of references and one of my favorite stats with the number of people who have apps, which i think is around 30, 36%, and the number of people who actually use them is 34%. [laughter] >> you know, these are apps. which everybody sort of holds up as the pinnacle of use. even then we haven't gotten there. that goes back to the that class of people who are cautious. i think we want to be thinking at the same time we are developing the technological capabilities what it means to use those technologies. that goes back to the working on your behalf. because then we're thinking
about the task that we want to do. not how we want to tell the computer to do those tasks, but just making a decision about what we want and having the technology make it as easy as possible to speak our language or understand our gestures, so to speak. >> well, the interesting thing is that, it is clear that 10% of the people are deeply weary and probably ungettable. unfortunately, they get 90% of the attention. for people who really don't want to move forward, they emphasize the fact that there's a certain set of people that just don't want it. why the heck are we trying to make them get it? and that, of course, distracts greatly from the fact that 90% of the people are gettable. even that 10%. i like surveys, we ask people is the internet important?
75% of the people say the internet is important to them personally. my conclusion, i'm going to analyze those. the other 25% just don't understand. you know, i could probably convert a bunch of those if i had some time. it's the 90% of the people that are gettable that we ought to care about. the second point is yes it is true that it is not only cost, but, in fact, the single most important of whether you have it if you don't is cost. it's the largest percent and if you add in the cost of the equipment, it becomes a major impediment. if we worry about the 90% that are gettable and ask the question what's the most important thing to do? find a way to make it affordable. you can talk about all of the social issues and education issues and use issues, but the most important factor, that's the most important thing. in the recent com past/nbc
merger, one the conditions that comcast agreed to was to make broadband available to everyone, to every family in their service territory which is in the school lunch program at $10 a month. that's a very attractive price. turns out the school lunch program as a public assistance program is a pretty forgiving program. it's relatively easy to get into. it obviously have the members of the household that we worry about. we know that family with kids want broadband more, want the internet more. so here it is. it was part of a merger condition, it's an extraction. and they committed for three years not only to sign everyone up, but as long as the family is in the school lunch program, they will stick with it. that is a progressive kind of program which i would like to see the whole industry adopt.
[laughter] >> so i think we have about five or ten minutes left. we have a question from the panel from the audience. >> i'm going to jump in here. i haven't asked a question in two days. my name is scott parsley. i'm from south dakota. you don't think much about it. what i would like -- i am excited to go home. my verizon phone does work there, it doesn't work in this building, but it does work there. >> you are in the basement. >> there's one spot that i finally found that works. the question that i haven't heard talked about, we are deploying some smart meters, smart technology. one the concern that is our customers, members, our owners have is privacy. you are going to know when i'm showering, you are going to know
-- how you are talking about you are going to know when i'm taking medicine, you are going to know when i'm in the bedroom, and kitchen. what about privacy in all of this? ii haven't heard much that this morning. >> i'm glad that you asked. i had a finite amount of time, and i was hoping to come back to this issue. so i think the very interesting thing about privacy, again, i'm going to go past and then forward, it's a pattern that i have. it's like a nervous kick, only verbal. it is that the past our sense of privacy was very physical and location based. it had to do with the doors of our house, or how close mark was sitting next to me, et cetera. and in the information era, the privacy has become very distributed. so, for example, you have transtivity. if i let mark sit close to me, he can't then somehow pass that ability to sit next to me on to
a friend, because i'll know it's not mark and that person can't sit next to me. whereas, if i give a piece of information like a birth date, that person can tell a lot of other people. with no loss of fidelity or accuracy. so that's just sort of one example of the changes in how we think about privacy and deal with privacy. so then that makes us at microphone think about a lot more nuanced way to control privacy. it makes us think about are there technological ways that using, you know, rules and definitely things like encryption, we can say things expire in a period of time. or the information that you use, smart meters in the house, everything that's used and at one time.
the upside of that is that you could let's see if the energy company was charging different prices at different times, you could choose when you wanted to do things. but the energy company doesn't need to know what you are doing at different times. working on, and people in microphone research work on these sorts of things. which is ways to take that information from the smart meter, verify that it's accurate, and then send a integrated amount of information to the power company that says, this was the total amount of power used at the various times, so this is the total am -- total amount that the bill should be. along with the office that's it's accurate. we are back to the geographical feeling of privacy. people in your house can hear the shower, but the power
company doesn't do that. the nuances levels of choices and letting information out in nuanced ways, and yet maintaining the trust. and it's a really heart question. but we are going to be able to make choices both as individuals about how much information that we want to share, as we do already. times we have the location feature on our phone turned on, sometimes we have it turned off. we want to be able to make those choices and technology to allow us to make any choice that is we want. >> part of it depends on the business model do. we are doing a lot of work with smart grid. you could have a model where the energy company gets your information and turns down the power when it's peak and so forth. the other model is the consumer have the information in the home network. so many people now that wireless home network that do the controlling themselves. information doesn't have to go to power company, necessarily, it could be used within the home to control the power levels of various devices.
that requires good information. one the things that's intriguing, research shows there's ways to make people more aware of the power that they are using that are lot easier than i might thing. for example, one thing that's been tried, putting smiley faces when your power goes down on the bill. that makes a difference. letting people know, that your next door neighbors had a 15% lower usage. you must be using your drier too much. think about doing that. there are ways to get the consumer information, and also ways where they control most of the changes that they would want to make on their own homes which deals with the privacy, because they are in control. it's not going to accompany outside of the home. one the ways is to make sure devices themselves, we are working with companies doing this, convey the information to you real time in a way that's meaningful. how much watts you are using per hour, this is causing you 15 cents per minute. do you want the light to be on? you will make those choices.
part of it is consumer information as well. >> i understand the meters. the point is privacy, we're taking this in the next step though. we're talking about knowing people are taking medicine. what the is privacy barrier going to be built? >> that's what i'm saying, the consumer control it is in their house. they are in control. no privacy, they are controlling it, it's not the company. >> let me make a point about the choice in control part. because it's wonderful to say that consumers should have choice and be control. it's also unrealistic to think that consumers are going to be able to make the decisions on the transaction by transaction basis. it will consume all of this immense amount of consumer resources. what they do, they throw their hands up. if i have to figure out on each and every gp schip, -- gps chip, or each and every device, they are not going to make those
choices. one the others used a wonderful example that talked about the g gps chip in the house. we would look up, but the sock is under the bed of the mistress and the wife is looking for it, it's not so great. so for consumers, i think the real -- i think the point is we have to simplify this stuff. if we think consumers are going to make the choices on the device by device and transaction by transaction basis, it's not going to happen, consumers are going to be exposed but they don't have the resources to control. the answer is we're going to need some simple choices; right? don't collect any information. that's a good one. and if i want to opt in, let me opt in on issue by issue basis. so if they electricity bill is really important to me, then i'll tell the company, fine, but
the second rule is that you only use the information for the purpose i have agreed to. and that we don't have now. so if i tell the utility, you can use this information to send me the smiley face, great. but don't tell anybody else about that. don't send it to some venders who wants to sell me devices that respond to smiley faces. let me make that choice. those are two simple principals. neither of which we have today. a good simple choice, and then complete control over what happens to the information that we agree to allow to be collected. those are two things that would advance us. it turns out south dakota looks a lot more like the rest of the world than washington, d.c. so the rest of the world is joining south dakota. and stuff you develop in south
dakota may have a bigger market globally than the stuff the companies are developing for the urban center. which is the really exciting part about this revolution. we really all of the sudden now have a true global market for lots of stuff. and we need to think about that. not just think about the u.s. market. >> we are quickly running out of time. if we can get in two quick questions with two quick answers, we can be done for the day. >> i want to bring us back to the universal service aspect of it. that's a major concern. and i hear still talking about we'll let the providers provide where they want to provide. and we'll trust that in the course of that, everyone will get coverage. and when we did that with electricity, we ended up with large area that weren't covered and we did electric cooperatives. what i see happening with this technology is that we're leading small areas that nobody covers
and that aren't going to be economically appropriate for that. and it just so happens that i live in one of those in the mountains of virginia. and there's a five mile circle that i live in, and, you know, comcast came the back roads and went out another road instead of the road, and stopped still too far. there's mountains, there's a railroad, there's a river, there's a interstate that i live two miles off of, four miles away in the other direction, verizon brought dsl. as they are providing money for things, i see in the some of the very rural, they are putting lines from broadband and so forth in. still my fife mile circle is not getting addressed. and it happens that my husband and i are able to try things. we've tried dial-up and satellite and the air cards and so forth. but i still didn't get to my house the kinds of things that
everybody else have. the president of verizon tells me i need to move from the house that i lived in for 25 years and it was a stagecoach ride way built in 1797. obviously, i didn't know the technology was going to be there. for the subdivision that's next to me and me and other people, my neighbors and i can't seem to get anything. and why is -- why are we doing something like say if you cover some of the area that everybody wants to cover, you got to provide service to a small portion of the territory that nobody wants to provide to. how are we going to ever get true universal service when we base it on the companies. >> mark was talking about the universal service reform. when he changes, he was talking about the universal connection, to a model where the money that
would be gathered would be use a lot of it for capital spending. in other words, building network where it's not economic, to build in the gaps that we are talking about. we support that in the fcc. we think that's a good idea. i think you are going to start seeing areas like that could be addressed. >> there isn't a local service. and in the five-mile range, there isn't going to be a small local company. there isn't any kind of infrastructure, and no motivation in a five-mile range for anybody to do that. >> but there are two things that could happen with the capital fund. there are facilities that take the traffic from the local out. and there's building out of that that's being down. the part that you are talking about, the local, part of it could be a wireless model and phone company could get funds from the federal government where it can't be economic to do that. that's what it was designed to do was to take it the final mile
where there's no economic capability to do that and get the places filled in. we do need to have the universe reform, not because we are supporting old networks and old approaches, because we need to get broadband built and it's not economic to do that. that reform is important if we can get it done. >> look, you want an obligation to serve everybody in the service territory. the difficulty is that those service territories certainly in wireless don't exist. i would suggest one thing that i want is i want a due diligence criteria. if he doesn't give you within two years the tower to serve you, he loses the license in the service territory. that's the most important. he might actually agree to that. there will be some areas where he won't. second of all, i'm going to target the subsidy there. we have a debate about how we are going to get people to come in. and i actually am a fan of
reverse auctions. i'm going to say here's your service territory, i have now taken the spectrum back. i've got it. who will come in here to build that at the lowest cost and you win. you get the business. under those circumstances, i think i can solve your problem. i would love to simply tell him, he has to serve it. which is what we did for 60, 70 years, 100 years. but we've abandoned that obligation to serve model and we can do one of two things. we can tear our hair out and ask to try too get that model back which i don't think is going to happen. my grand kids maybe, your grand kids, or great, great grant kids. we can tear our hair about not getting the obligation to serve back, or figure out neat ways to get you service as fast as you can. these days, i vote for the ladder. -- latter. because that's what matters to
you and most people. >> one final question. then a quick answer. >> part of a question and part of a comment. mark, when i was raising hand and another hand. i didn't have the same aimening that you have. i recently flipped from a flip phone to a smartphone. i'm recalling in the size of the bill. this is the way i was feeling. [laughter] >> that's what it was. i friend -- i went from $60 to $160. smartphone, sold to not so smart consumer who's going to spend a hopefully learn how to use this thing before i can't use it anymore. elizabeth, i want to make a comment to you. this had been a very good panel. i've learned a lot. i'm struck by your phrase in the consumers behave, on the consumers behalf. which i really resonated, because that's what people need. but you went on to describe it
as there are computers all around you that are talking to each other and i'm thinking what are they saying? what are they doing? and i get phone calls all the time, by the way, my name is david. i want to say to you privately, i'm an engineer. i'm an electrical engineer, i probably taught some of the guys that are taking some of the neat stuff. >> the software engineer. >> yeah, well, the trouble is has to be taken in context. on the ground, i get phone calls all the time. how do i change the temperature in my refrigerator? how do i get the over over -- oo work? because there's so much cool stuff that cool guys in the laboratory can dream up, and so many other people sell the stuff and make you think you are going to go to nirvana.
when they are left alone, they can't make it work. i'm serious, i can't figure out. i love this stuff. i'll probably end up taking my smartphone apart just to see what's in there. but making it do -- i'm going to make this personal, it is that the technology gets just out of the reach of the consumer. trying to get a soap bubble, you reach for it and the wind makes it get just beyond you. it's like the capacity in computers. great that we doubled the capacity. the programmers said i'm going to eat it up. still it's a constant push. and so it's just a request. you can comment on it, but you probably don't have time. and that is you've got to get to this thing about on behalf of the consumers on behalf of the consumers in concert with the consumers, talking to consumers, instead of a big full page ad saying heaven is here, a cloud is here, buy it and figure it
out later. >> i think we need to clear the room for the next panel. maybe you can have the conversation off the coppic. >> we're going to take a quick five minute break and be back at 10:30. because our keynote speaker is here and ready to start. okay? >> president obama's tour of latin america takes into el salvador today.
>> beginning april 1 and throughout the month, we'll feature the top winners of this year c-span student cam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentary on the theme "washington, d.c. through my lens" focusing on the advanced issue or topic that helped them understand the role of the federal government. watch the videos and meet the students that created them.
stream the videos online at studentcam.org. >> c-span2, one of c-span's public affairs offerings. weekdays live coverage of the u.s. senate, and weekends booktv. 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books. connect with us our twitter, facebook, and youtube, and sign up for scheduled alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> and we're live once again with the america's promise summit. the organization reports that one out of every four public school students will drop out of high school before graduation. the group is holding the summit on reducing the high school dropout prates. governors in maryland talked with the mayors about what they are doing. we expect this to get underway in just a couple of minutes. we'll have live coverage for you here on c-span2. back to discussion on this
well, here we are. once again i want to say how happy we are that you are here for the first annual building of gradnation summit. i had the pleasure of seeing many of you last night when we were joined by secretary duncan. but today we get busy and get to work. we have a full day in store with lots of sessions. we've talked about this before, and we will talk about it throughout these two days that we are together. we are here as partners in the movement that is gaining momentum. people are coming to understand that we have a problem when a student drops out every 26 sessions. people are coming to understand that we have to turn that around. there's all kinds of chatter, and all kinds of talk about it. and we see more and more news articles about it. the other day i got a letter
from a man who said did you know that another student drops out of school every 26 seconds. you in america's promise need to get behind this issue and do something. he obviously had heard the message. [laughter] >> now some people might think a letter like that is discouraging. did we not let people know what we were doing? but it really gets me very excited. because it means that we have helped to raise awareness to the point that people not only know there's a crisis, they are repeating the very statistics that we talked about. when john bridgeland prepared this landmark study several years ago, the dropout prices really was a silent epidemic. but it's no longer silent. and that's just one measure of the progress that we are making. as we learn from our progress report last fall, the national
graduation rate has risen 3%. that's not nearly enough. [applause] >> it's progress. >> when we began the campaign, we said the focus would be on 2,000 high schools. today we have to raise the together, because the number of dropout factories has fallen to less than 1,700. not enough. [applause] >> but it's progress. in some of our largest cities, like new york and philadelphia. we are seeing double digit increases in graduation rates. great progress. not enough yet. guess what else we learned. the cities where we are seeing some of the greatest process are
the same cities where cross sector has been especially strong. that's no coincidence. what we are doing is making a difference. but we also know, and that's why you are here, there's a lot of work to do. while the summit is about progress, even more it is about how we build on that progress. where do we go from here? we know at america's promise alliance has increased our alliance to over 400 national partners and their local affiliates and they are all actively engaged in this movement. if you are one of our new partners, thank you for coming on board. but we need to recruit more to join us, and you all can help with us. we need to continue to support education reform for school districts and states to be accountable for raising
graduation rates and preparing students for success in college and work. for the implementation that ensure rigger and relevance. and we need to hold ourselves accountable too. to measure our progress and improve where we need to get better. now that's something that you have asked for. and as a result, we have reframed our work over the past several years. this summit is an annual event. every year we will come back and measure our progress and make ourselves accountable for the results. we can't say this enough, the government cannot do it alone. schools cannot do it alone. what we can do is a national movement. and that is what we are building. a movement that has the power to bring real and lasting change.
i learned something about the power of the mississippi river when i read that you can sign fresh water 100 miles out into the gulf of mexico. now that's a measure of the river's amazing power. but when you think about it, that power doesn't come from the mississippi itself, instead the river is a conduit where true power comes from the tributaries, it starts in the mountain streams of colorado and montana, and in lakes in minnesota and wisconsin, and appalachian creeks in pennsylvania and west virginia and tennessee. these dreams join into rivers like the arkansas and the plaque and the red river and the ohio and missouri. and together they channel all of the collective power into a force with the power to push back an ocean. that's the power that we are
summoning together. the power to sweep back the tides of indifference. [applause] [applause] >> push aside the tides of indifference and failure and transform the landscape so that we maybe a great -- a gradnation. today we get started, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. now it is my great pleasure to introduce to you the co-chair of grad nation. alma powell, the chair, as we return now to live coverage of the america's progress summit. combination of the nation's mayors and how they are dealing with the rates. >> urging me forward. the page finally loaded and i saw my future. i was accepted to ucla. [applause]
>> though i'm still waiting to hear from uc berkeley, i know i will go to college and i'm on my way to achieving my dream of becoming a doctor thanks to the foundation and alliance. one thing i've learned is the importance of role models. the personal i'm going to introduce now is just that. lisa ward is president of the community and she's involved in community market, volunteers, and over civic activities. she's on the board of directors for the corporation, and volunteering in service, and the executive leadership council and national membership organization for african-american executives. as many of you know, target recently announced it's plan to donate more than 500 million by the end of 2015 to support education. doubling it's support for a
total of more than $1 billion. laysha is certainly a role model, everybody welcome ms. laysha ward. ♪ ♪ >> good afternoon. chelsea was backstage, she said i'm really nervous. i told her don't be nervous. take a deep breath and smile, because we all want her tour successful. she truly was a star. thank you, chelsea. [applause] >> she and the other students from simon's scholars represent why we are here today. that's to help all students graduate and reach their full potential. i'd like to add my thanks to the powell family, marguertie, and everyone at america's promise
alliance. i bring you greetings from over 355,000 member of the target team. we thank you for your vision and leadership and are honored to support this bold movement to reach our goal of a 90% national graduation rate by 2020. education isn't a republican issue. it isn't a democratic issue. it's an american education. a critical importance to our global economy, work force readiness, and our national security. as a nation of caring citizens, we all have a role to play. we know that politics are local, schools are local, and target is local. we are working on the local and national level to help all kids get the education they deserve. regardless of race or class. there is an achievement gap in america. and we must close it.
data shows a strong correlation between reading proficiency and graduation rates. that's why target is focusing our effort by the end of third grade when they take the critical step from learning to read to reading to learn. that's why we are donating $500 million to education by the end of 2015. bringing our total commitment to over $1 billion. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> it's why we live 5% of our income, that's more than $3 million, every week, along with the time and talent of our team members. that's why we are connecting our work in the arts, social services, and volunteerism for greater impact. we're using our strength as the national retailer to raise awareness, and leaders like all of you and build public private
partnership. and it's why we support a host of innovative education programs from target school library makeovers to take charge of education which has generated nearly $300 million to the nation's k-12 schools across america. we partner with local schools and nonprofits, many of whom are here today, and we are honored and humbled to work alongside all of you. why are we doing this? we do it to improve academic achievement. we do it to put more kids on the path to high school graduation and build a grad nation. we do it so they are ready for college, a career, and for life. my great, great grandma, hattie may said there are few things in life worth fighting for. your family, your friends, your
faith, freedom, and an education. she was 105 years old when she passed away in 1985. the next year, i fulfilled one of her dreams and graduated from high school, a rural school, in fact, and went on to become the first person in my family to graduate from college. [applause] [applause] >> on my path of high school graduation, college, career, and life, i stood on the shoulders of caring and courageous giants like my grandmother, my parents, teachers, faith-based and community organizations like head start, an early learning program for low-income children that i attended. we may have been poor, but we were proud and we believe that all children had the right to reach their full potential and achieve the american dream. i'm living that dream. but far too many of our nation's
children are not yet living that dream. in a moment we're going to hear from five -- four actually of our country's leading governors and mayors, many committed to achieving great educational outcomes for the children in their cities and their states. and their leadership is being tested during this time of incredible economic pressure on their budget. so now more than ever, it is critical that we in the private sector step up and give back to the communities that we serve. every time we renovate a library in the neighborhood, elementary school, we free up precious resources that local leaders can invest elsewhere. this is a partnership, and we are honored to play a role. i encourage you to listen and to learn and to be inspired by their initiative. please welcome our panelist, governor robert f. mcdonald from the state of virginia, here
he comes. welcome. governor martin o'malley from the state of maryland. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> mayor gregory ballard from indianapolis, indiana, and i am a hoosier by birth. no hoosiers. [applause] >> mayor mick cormick from oklahoma city, oklahoma. [applause] >> and welcome our moderators, senior correspondent for pbs news hour, gwen eiffel, and executive director of role call, mor tin. enjoy the panel.
we were supposed to be joined by corey booker, the mayor of newark, i'm sorry he's not here. i was dying to ask him how everybody can get money out of mark zuckerberg for their own city. but we'll have to do that some other time. to start, governor o'malley, maryland -- i know you are proud of the fact that maryland rates number one in education. [cheers and applause] >> come on, none of that. but you do have 27 dropout factory high schools in your state. what are you doing about that? what are you going to do to try to raise the graduation rate in those places? >> there's a number of strategies that are implemented with the local education
agencies, associations, i mean some of the most important thing that is we did in baltimore city was to take some of the larger high schools and split them up into smaller schools. and also being able to create themes in some of the high schools for a career path, job and career and college readiness, those were very important. another thing that we've done over the last few years is to expand the number of career and technical education offerings. we've gone from 30 to 38. to the extent that we are better able to match up the cte with the places where we have the greatest dropout problems, i think we realize a lot more of the goal of graduating more of our kids. those are some of the things that we do. all of them come down to leadership. where you want to call it reconstitute, innovate, restart, the most important thing for turning around a high school is
having a great principal. that is not something that training pipeline for new principals is not something that we have yet done as well as we need to. this is part of our race to the top, and we are hopeful with john hopkins and the university of maryland we'll be better to invigorate the pipeline of training and recruitment so we get the best leaders into our high schools that have had the greatest challenges and also therefore the greatest opportunities for process. >> ordinarily, we would start with the governors and the mayors. i want to mix it up. we have a lot of marks up here on the panel. we want to get to them as much as possible. and the mayor ballard, the mayor of indianapolis, according to our numbers, your dropout rate is quite high. that only 49% of our high school graduates actually graduate. there are eight dropout factories in indianapolis. tell us what you identify as the
challenge that you face as a mayor as many cities have education challenges and what you see as a opportunity. >> i believe that number that are you are talking about is the number for one of our school district and largest school district. actually in i indianapolis, we have 11%. we do have a difficult school system as others do in the larger cities across the nation. but we have done in indianapolis we have the chamber of commerce has come together and started the program called the common goal. just a few years ago, for instance, across the city of indianapolis, in not just the oe particular difference, the graduation rate was 60 to 90%. now it's at 80. within the urban district, if you will, that graduation rate is 56%. we have put graduation coaches into the schools. kind of like communities and schools, we put people into the community, non-profit, and come
together and work hard to make sure the kids have the resources and the teachers. >> you call them graduation coaches? >> graduation coaches that the chamber of commerce, supported by united way, which has been a tremendous partner in the city of indianapolis. larger companies have come together to work out. it is like the community coming into the school to help out. and the numbers certainly in the last three years we've seen an increase. >> so governor mcdonald, you have a 77% statewide graduation rate. but you do have 25 dropout factory schools. where is -- where is the dropout crisis on your agenda? >> well, it's high. obviously finishing high school and hopefully going on to either a good job or college education is really access to american dream. i think that it's going to take a concerned parent and a motivated teacher really to
solve this problem. secondly is to be able to tie education to economic development and job creation. the kids have to see where it's going not just the green itself, but it's the access to the good job and thus their dreams for the future. we've employed a couple of strategies that i think are helping one as the others have said very intense dropout prevention and intervention program. we have turn around specialist that are going in with a high drop out and those that are not fully credited and doing intense work with teachers, particularly with principals and others to turn it around. secondly we had some reforms to create competitive, charters, virtual schools, not all kids learn better in the classroom. some learn better in the virtual i don't think one particular thing is the answer.
they want to learn and see it's a ticket to a well paying job in the future. >> that kind of breaks a lot of questions about what the responsibility is. i would like to mayor cornett to weigh in. 63% graduation drop, seven dropout factories. not only how high, but what do you do about it once it's up there on the list? >> i think the graduation rate reflects the state average. one program that we have that i would identify is a truancy problem. we got the police department involved. the moment they start to be truant, not showing up in school, we have a police officer. if we can engage the parent on the front end, we will have a better chance without creating a dropout. >> can i ask a question, how do you have the resources to put a
front officer? >> if we don't, we're going to be using a police officer with that dropout then or later. we've got to keep him in school. you let a kid drop out of school, the idea that he's going to run into a police officer down the line is almost guaranteed. >> my impression from what i've read about you is that your education program is focused on rebuilding all of the schools in the city. >> right. >> now how does that link up to applying resources to dropouts. >> we at a one cent penny on the dollar sales tax for seven years to rebuild every building. all 75 buildings are built new or refurbished. the idea if the kid had the better environment, the teacher is more likely to want to teach, a parent is more likely to want to be there. so the capital needs were at the point of an emergency. we're in the final stages. the new high schools have opened up. we're working on the grade schools.
by the end of the year, we'll have all 75 of the buildings done. i feel like the capital needs for fundamental and something the city can provide. the programming is technically not under the jurisdiction. we're rolling up our sleeves, and seeing more and more cooperation with the districts. i'm very encouraged. >> did you have to have a bond issue or referendum? >> we did. we had to go to the voters. keep in mind we had 24 districts. people that tended to vote yes didn't live in the district. we had to get them to die into the fact that the quality of inner school district was important to their quality of life. we passed 60% in november 2001, and collected the dollar. some of the money went to the suburban, but the bulk went to the one intercity that had so many deferred maintenance issue that was never going to work it
out alone? >> what about the governor of maryland? >> we have increased the last two years. we now have the highest amount we've ever invested in public education. we've increased by 1.1 billion just over the last four years. i mean if we live -- we're at a time in our country right now where everybody wants to eat cake and lose weight. we all want great schools. we all want great schools. but -- [applause] [applause] >> we all want great schools, but too often we want meters. >> i feel like they are all eating cake right now. >> we have to be honest, we want great schools, but we want leaders that tell us what solves all of the nation's problem is another tax cut or lower taxes. there's no way to build schools without paying for them. and that's why -- [applause] [applause]
>> you know, that's why i lean forward when i heard the mayor talking about what he was able to do when he was able to do that throughout your whole city. we need to -- we're one of only 17 states that does anything on school construction. most states don't put any dollars towards school construction. in our state, we do, in fact, over the last four years we have funded even with 5.6, now $6.6 billion in cuts and reductions, we've funded an all time high over the last four years in school renovation and school construction in our state. we are one of only eight that has the aaa, and we believe that education is the most important thing we can do to win the future so that our kids have jobs and we have a better economy. that's why we make the investment. it's something that we are only able to do by forging the precious consensus to do the tough things like raising the sales tax by a penny in order to pay for it or putting on the
progressive income tax, or god forbid even asking corporations to pay more on the corporate income taxes. >> governor, i take it that you are -- that taxes are not something that you like to raise. but what is the budget situation for schools in virginia? i mean all over the country we are slashing school budgets, what are you doing to facing your budget deficit problem? >> well, like most chief executive officers of the state, there are some tough choices that have to be made. we cut $4.2 billion out of our budget last year. we had to make reductions in k-12 in higher ed, in health care, because we felt it was not the right time in this city to raise taxes on the st. st. st. f virginia. we made the tough choices. six months later ended up with a budget surplus. now this year, we have been able
to reinvestment in higher education, $110 in k-12. we are now turning the corner, i think, in our state. i think it's probably fair to say that we should not over emphasize money. there's no question that it takes resources to pay teachers to build schools to create innovative programs. but so much i think of what determines the outcomes for our young people, again, as what i've said is a good principal. it's a concern to qualify teacher, it's an engaged participant, it's the type of environment that you create where the kid comes to school and feels welcome and feels motivated and seeing this is their ticket to the american dream. i think it takes both. and if we don't put more emphasis on quality and outcomes and results and we put too much on input and money, i think we are missing the results. >> let's talk to mayor ballard
about input and results. when we hear about school reform and the most broad definition, the conversation often pals to private input and the solutions. let's talk about the private solutions, to what degree do we have to depend on charitable giving and on private investment, and on things like charter schools which don't necessarily depend on the traditional model? >> i think it's okay to depend on that sometimes. actually, in our city, i think in most cities across the nation, the largest corporation and nonprofits, they want to be a part of that solution. they are asking to be part of the solution. so i'm fine with that. unless some laws have changed somewhere else, i'm still the only mayor in the country that's allowed to go with charter schools. i think charter schools are wonderful. i believe the competition of schools is a good thing. i don't know why choices looks upon the bad of education and
the good everywhere else. so the charter schools, i think are a good option. i think a lot of reform measure going across the nation would have to be looked at. because i am results oriented. if you are doing the same thing over and over again and saying we just need a little bit more money, you know, sometimes maybe. but most of the times, probably not. it's the model that isn't working. and we need to look at what works and what does not work. like i said, when we had the graduation coaches and similar with the communities and schools, bringing people into the schools because as the governor said very well, you know, it is the principal, it is the teacher, and he said engaged parent, but i would tell you there's a lot of kids that don't have the encouraged parent. we must cognizant of that fact. that's when some people want to blame the parents. i've never blamed the parents. we are in a cycle now where some parents don't know how to help
their kids. they never saw it. they don't know what it looks like. [applause] >> we must be cognizant. some kids are smart enough to know they don't want to go home either. it's not a good environment. we must put that caring adult in that kid's life. that's the mentors program, we have a program star fish initiative. wonderful organization, it does a lot of that. our community, and i'm sure it's the same in most cities across the nation, want our community -- our community wants to be involved in the school system. we want the school systems to be receptive to that. at the end of the day when those kids graduate, they are going to be in that system. they should know some folks. so we have many, many different models in indianapolis. we are very lucky to have an organization called mind trust. which i think is one the premier educational innovation system in the country. we are trying a lot of things.
we want innovation, we want to try different things, we want competition because we want those kids to graduate. one model does not fit all. i could tell you examples of charter schools that we've done. one is -- i know i'm rambling. but we have one school that's just devoted to kids with substance abuse. you want to see a high school graduation, go to that high school graduation. it is remarkable. there were six kids a couple of years ago in that graduation. none of those kids ever would have graduated in a traditional high school. none of them. >> the model that you are describing is the model that the grad nation and civil marshal plan describes. i mean you seem to have done it. i don't know how familiar you are with what's being discussed here. that's it. i mean it is to take these problem schools and surround them with the support that the families and the kids need, help
support education reform, afterschool, tutors and stuff like that. to what extent governor mcdonnell are you implementing that kind of concerted strategy around the problem schools of virginia? >> yeah, i think that's a very good model. you can't address the problems unless you address the entire community in which the young person grows up president community -- grows up. the community school problems takes the holistic approach and looking at all of the factors that the young person have to face. might be impediments of success, and creates the alternative environments that they can use to accel. the turn around that come into the school don't have a one-size-fits-all approach. they look at that, and try to integrate the social social sere
system, and education system, and try to give everything that the young person would need. that's the thing. we've reduced the number of schools down from 72 to 19. we're on the right track, making progress, looking at those individuals schools. the other thing that we try to do is we haven't talked about yet that is critically important. we have to ratchet up the stem focus in our elementary and high school. we are -- it's frightening the way i think in some degree we are falling behind the other nations and the number of other young people in the science, technology, math, welfare. these are the things that will create the future, they keep the military strong, and great, these are the things through s.t.e.m. and first robotics programs that really captivate
the young people and get them interested in school again. if they are excited about being there, and you support them, they will do well. >> doesn't this -- you want to add things to what's being done now. doesn't it cost money? where do you get it? >> if you look at what's happened in the country over the last couple of decades, it's generally not been money. we've increased our student enrollment over the past decade about seven or eight percent, but the amount of new funding for education has gone up about 45 or 50%. it's actually outpaced the rate of growth in student enrollment. on the education per capita, we are still growing. even with some of the cuts we've made. i think it's about back to governor malice intention, stretching the dollars farther and putting them into what you know has worked. focusing on outcome, not just interest. >> mayor cornett how do you
prioritize in a time of economic hardship? there's a straight line between educational achievement and economic development, and there's a good reason for private companies, governments to be engaged in this. at some point, the choices have to be made about resources, you can move them around on the plate, put some here and there, eventually, you have to decide a chief executive where the emphasis goes. how do you even begin to do that? >> well, first public safety is the priority of city government. from an educational perspective, i think it's important to keep the fill philanthropist engaged. if the philanthropist get to the point they don't feel like it's making a difference, they will withdraw. so the educational leaders, superintendent, school board members, fill philanthropist, ad city government. the more people pulling on the same rope, the better chances. when budgets get squeezed, i
hear them talk about cutting the budget, you got to keep the philanthropist involved -- >> give me an example how that's worked for you? >> we have a program called educare. it's going into the weakness performing zip codes and spending money at kids starting as young as two years of age and putting highly qualified teachers and educational services at 2, 3, 4. george kaiser is one of the chief philanthropist, as are others in oklahoma. it shows me if you spend enough money and you get to a kid early enough, even in those weakest, under performing zip codes, you can make a difference. it's not the kids. but there's still of question of can you afford that high level of early childhood education? and if not, what can you afford? i mean how much can you dial it back and still get superior results?
>> and what are the rest of the you doing about preschool, early childhood education? do you have programs for that? >> sure. one the most important things we were able to do with the increased funding from the thornton initiative which about the last six or seven years of ramping up was to be able to go to full-day kindergarten throughout our sate. when we did that in baltimore city, not a single grade scored proficient in reading or math. the next year, not only majority proficient in reading and math, they have got ton a point where we are above the national average in reading and math. and now grades one through eight are majority proficient after full-day kindergarten. full-day kindergarten made a huge difference. we have been putting together a collaborative approach to target
the pre-k interventions in the zip codes that need it the most, bringing together foundations and others for our ready-to-learn initiative so that more and more of our children in our state are ready to learn by the time they are ready for kindergarten. >> mayor? could you follow up? >> we have many programs similar to what mayor cornett said. we have programs and make sure the 3, 4, and 5 year-olds have what they need. that's a big part. we are lucky to have big funders and a lot of people that want to do these sorts of things. i think it's had an impact. >> i'd like to divide the rest of the conversation to two general topic areas. who's teaching and who's learning? starting with you governor
mcdonnell, the question of who's teaching is tenture and collective bargaining and testing. how would you prioritize that in terms of what our concept here, which is how to keep kids of dropping out of school, how important is that? and how do you change it if you need to change it? >> i'm sorry. how important is? >> focusing on who's teaching, whether it's a question of tenure, or collective bargaining, or testing? >> i think it's very important. again, able, talented teacher in the classroom with a reasonable class size is critically important. i think all of the literature tells you good outcomes with those students. we are constantly looking for ways to get more people motivated to be in the teaching profession. that means everything from looking at salary issues to making an easier pass to license for former military to be able to get more people interested in the profession. i think that's number one as
recruitment. secondly, i know we have looked at the issue of continuing contract, which was our version of tenure for k-12 to see whether or not modifications may need to be made there with those efforts that have typically not been successful in the legislature. but if you look at what makes people excel in american business, i think having an at will environment or people can discipline and hire and fire according to actual performance is worked well. you don't have that in the public sector as much. i'd like to see streamlining there to be able to hire the best people and have the people that are performing well access quicker. i think the president's initiative on merit pay is great. i put money towards the first ever merit pilot in virginia, and working with the federal government and some of the things they are doing in that area will really help to provide the incentive for teachers not only to enter, but excel, and
tieing the performance and we ought to do that. >> yes. let me phrase the question differently. i'll ask you all to answer this question. do you regard teachers unions as an ally or impediment to school reform? let's put it on the line. [laughter] >> i take it it strikes a note out there. you can start. you are generally regarded as being pro-labor. >> lucky you. >> i thought your question would be do you see your teachers unions as an ally or an impediment to student achievement and student progress. and so i don't know. i don't think that reform for reform sake is something -- i'm much more entrepreneurial, i want to do the things that work to improve student achievement. there's not a large city in
america with the possible exception of new york city that's experienced a bigger increase in student achievement over these last eight years than the students of the city of baltimore have. which is not to say we don't have a lot more progress to make. but we are only able to do that because we treated our work force, our teachers with dignity and with respect. i mean our -- [applause] [applause] >> so in my administration and the people that have made me look good to the extent that i've been able to look good as a manager, we've won all sorts of awards and kudos for performance measurement and performance management. :
>> i know it doesn't make a lot of people happy. i know sometimes it's easy to think that unions are big and bad, they are evil, they're stopping all progress. but i will tell you what, in the toughest of times the people of maryland would not have come together to make greater investments rather than lesser in public education were it not for the advocacy, the performance and the hard work they teachers unions throughout
our state who supported us and allowed us to succeed in winning one of the very few races to the top grants. so whether workforce is organized or whether it is not organized i think as a manager, as a ceo you have to bring people together to achieve results. that's what we're doing in maryland. [applause] [applause] >> very interesting. where i sit with this in the city that i am, which i'm republican mayor in a leaning democratic city. when someone asks me early on one of my staffers asked me early on are you for unions or against unions. i said i'm for the taxpayer. to bring value to the equation that's what it is. it's kind of funny, i'm not here politically. nobody knows what am, that's fine. [laughter] >> the unions just endorsed me for reelection.
we do treat people with dignity and respect. but what i unfortunately speak is what works. i don't think one model is the answer. different kids require different models. different situations require different things. that's just the way it is. i think competition is good. i think choice is good. i don't think in, i can't speak to the states are not going to speak to this day. i will tell you that when i walk in on a school and if you ever want of a lot of fun walking in on a school completely unannounced, they are all on task if the students are there. they teachers are serious. it's all going on no matter what school system i walk in on, they are all on task. that means something is working there. but also as you mentioned with difficult fiscal situations. we have to drill down as to what is working and not working.
i'm kind of ambivalent but as long as the union is on board with making sure that this kids get educated, i'm all there. and i've not seen any evidence otherwise, frankly. >> i'm not ambivalent. i'm the son of a teacher. my mother, i think i owe most of my capabilities to her. she was in the early childhood education before it had a name. she taught first grade for four years pictures a member of the union. to answer your question might expect at the top means the teacher unions are an overall employment. >> specifically. >> protecting teachers who want to be replaced, over and over again. and i just live in more of a free market system where better teachers are rewarded, and lesser teachers find another way to make their living. >> governor mcdonnell? >> we banned public sector bargain 20 years ago in virginia.
the influence of unions in the public or private sector is very small in virginia. but i believe, i think the governor said, if you're a manager you take care of your people. you make sure they're compensated well. you treat people fairly. i think that is the right approach in the public and private sector. we had very powerful teachers associations in virginia. they have a lot of influence. they bring good ideas to the table and we listen to them. i think we manage well without a union, but the influence of the input of the associations represent a large group of professionals is helpful. >> let me go back to governor o'malley a second. i know that you have a merit pay proposal, and maybe it's the law already, whereby you can get extra pay to teachers who teach in difficult schools or teach
hard, difficult subjects. but what about facing -- basing merit pay on student performance? do you favor that? that's usually where the unions are difficult, that they don't want people to get fired on the basis of testing results and stuff like that. they also don't want people laid off on the basis of their performance when they have to be laid off, but rather on the basis of seniority. so how do you resolve that? i mean, how do you professional -- treat teachers as a profession without holding them accountable for failure and rewarding them for success? >> again, i think all of this comes back to management and having good superintendents that are running your local education associations. three things come to mind. in prince george's county prior to race to the top there was
already dashed thank you, prince george's county. [cheers and applause] >> in prince george's county they already had an agreement whereby they had some merit pay and had worked that out as part of their contract, and as part of the bargaining process. in baltimore city recently they passed a very innovative contract that failed the first budget passed when it was reconsidered after the union leaders actually push it onto members in order to have differentiated pay, i think for harder to attract, you know, topics, subject matter and some merit aspects to that -- >> but what about performance? >> that leads me to the third point, which is as part of our race to the top, we had to be committed to the notion that somehow we have to come up with a way to tie student progress to teaching, and the teacher's performance. and we now have a committee
that's working our way through how we constitute that 50%, what percent of it is progress on test, what percent of it is other sort of progress that the student makes, what percent of it -- how does that 50% come to be made up? so that's part of what we're working our way through right now in a collaborative way. we are not done yet and there are a lot of strong feelings around that table. that i'd rather have a strong feelings at the table and shouting at us from all sides of the building. >> we are fast talking running out of time but i don't want in this conversation with us talking about the people who are learning. most of the people in this room who are concerned about this understand that at the heart of this debate are people, children who are not learning. many of whom are people who looked more likely than -- like me like you on the pampered our children of color, their people
who come from single parent homes. there are people who don't have advantages. so there's an achievement gap which has sprung up with some of the things we're talking about might address but a lot might not. starting with you, mayor blanchard, give us a sense of how you tackle that very problem spent i think this goes back to the community. we deal with this all the time. it's heartbreaking. some of the stories are just heartbreaking. but we are very lucky in indianapolis. we have a lot of people are dealing with this issue straight on. we will continue to do that. at political leaders in the state get lined up. as you know, as people have been following we have an issue going on right now in the state of indiana, but the education reform -- reformers are going in the right direction to we want to make sure because that is exactly who they are trying to
address. >> you know what i've seen is the african-american committee dispersing throughout the city in the other district. we have that one lowly performing district which is primarily people of color, actually there's larger hispanic% and is african-american. our african-american community is now dispersing throughout all 6-under 20 square miles of our committee. to a certain extent than sober to resolve the question. these parents are making choices to help better their kids future. and i think that is going to be a great step towards the line. there is no question that in america, in oklahoma come in oakland the city is a disadvantage in general to be an african-american person. i would also be change. i'm sure everyone here on the panel would love to change that but it's not going to happen quickly. it will only happen if if we work together and first of all, come to the conclusion it is the truth. and then work together to see what we can result. >> come to a conclusion about what the causes are. >> there are social issues that
are prevalent that we have ignored too long. >> governor, i guess i'll start with governor mcdonnell. >> i believe in the old adage that a person's worth work ethic and not within the. i think that is quickly important i think the things that talked about earlier in charter schools, college laboratories, creates competition and alternatives, particularly in some of those communities to raise the bar is part of the approach. most of the money in the tournament school effort is in the schools that have a high percentage of minority students. unfortunately, where some of the achievement gap is. and then again recruiting, having incentives to recruit teachers to the schools where you need the best and the biggest increase in performance but i think all those together will help turn things. >> in our state we firmly believe there is no such maryland as a spare american that every child is the. every child has to be successful and we are very proud of the progress we're making and hope to be able to repeat that
progress again. we have been able to cut in half the achievement gaps between black and white students in our states over the last six years. and we believe we can do that again. [applause] [applause] >> and we believe we can do that again if we keep focused, if implement the longitudinal data tracking. if we derived our decisions, that are based by the data, and target our interventions to where they can do the most good and where they are most needed. >> governor o'malley, governor mcdonnell, mayors, on behalf of my colleague, morton kondracke and the visionaries at america's progress, thank you all so much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the session. concurrent sessions will begin downstairs at the washington room. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> they don't make any sense. so finally i went to the parliamentarian in the senate and said i don't get it. i've got a rules background to what are the rules of the senate? he said there are only two rules innocent. what is that? i'm going to get inside were. he said exhaustion and unanimous consent. and if you get the senators exhausted enough they will unanimously agree to anything.
>> republican senators on the judiciary committee are questioning the nomination of goodwin liu for the ninth circuit court of appeals. president obama's renominated mr. liu to the ninth circuit earlier this year when the senate failed to vote on his recess. for a second time earlier this month. this is about an hour and a half. >> i would like to acknowledge some distinguished members of audience, represented judy chu, transportation during the ford administration bill coleman, representative bobby scott, and representative doris matsui it. thank you for coming. fit to come to this humble house. i would like to take this nominee for the ninth circuit, and i must tell you i don't shake. this is the second time he's been nominated.
i had the privilege of spending francisco, and so i invited him to join us for a family dinner so i could get to know him. and there was substantial legal a very interesting and very professor liu is the associate in the field of constitutional policy. and a well-regarded teacher of law at the universityi california.
he is a proud husband andú0$0ú2 father. he as a scholar, a formidable intellect who cares deeply about the law and takes great care in formulating his thoughts and ideas. and he is a person with an inviting commitment to public service. what also comes through when talking to professor liu is his deep appreciation for the opportunities our country affords. he is the son of taiwanese immigrant. his parents came to this country as part of a program that recruiter primary care physicians to work in rural areas throughout america. he spent his childhood in augustine georgia lewiston, florida, and sacramento, california. he attended public schools, where far from having an easy time he struggled first to read, and later to master the english vocabulary. he went on, however, to become
co-valedictorian of real americano high school in sacramento. copresident of the undergraduate student body. i only made vice president. [laughter] journal. united states supreme court, and on the best its court appeal to judge. professor liu serve as a legal and policy adviser in the department of education. he also has private practice experience at the prestigious law firm. and he is now a tenured constitutional law professor at the associate dean of the school of law.
among other accolades he has received the university of california at berkeley's highest he has been a legal consultant award for distinguished scholarship. american law institute, and he is on the board of trustees of stanford university. as a professor has written extensively. "stanford law review," the iowa law review. there's no question that some of thought-provoking. as professor liu himself said in the role of a judge is quite different from that. again in his own words, and i
to be an impartial objective and neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies. that come before him or her. and the way the process works is the absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the language of the law, the statutes, regulations that are at issue in the case, end quote. he clearly recognizes that these are very different roles. the question is, can he make the transition? and i have every confidence that he can. i was also -- i would also point out that the committee previously confirmed republican appointees such as michael mcconnell for the 10th circuit. hardy wilkinson for the fourth circuit. frank easterbrook on the seventh circuit, and kimberly and more on the federal circuit. more and wilkinson were younger
at the confirmation than liu is now. and had quite comparable mcconnell's writings were at believe going to relate it here. we had a nominee for the 10th>, circuit by the name of stuff>@ñ4 with. democrats were not going to vote for him.>(ñ-ñañ! him. i did, for a long time, more than once. were, and i talked with him about them. and i decided i was going to vote for him. and i did vote for him, and he
is now sitting on the 10th as a matter of fact, i received appreciated that vote and what become very polarized. kind of thing continues, nobody can break away from the party and that would be a real tragedy for those who would question you to one of the conservatives who has written to the committee and i'd like to call special attention to a letter submitted by kenneth starr. as many here will know, kenneth starr is currently the president circuit judge and as solicitor
positions by republican presidents. akhil amar wrote about professor liu. commentators on all sides will in the end, however, a judge constitution. the us, in our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily and evaluation of an extraordinarily gifted nominees professional integrity and the degree, we are confident that he will serve on the court of competently, but with great this
and urge his speedy confirmation. now, professor liu was a great asset to the faculty of the university of california. and i really believe he will be a superb judge on the ninth circuit. it is my hope that for those on this committee who don't know him, that you will take the time to get to know him. no, sit down with him, asking questions, but please, don't young man. so now, i'd like to ask the will begin the hearing. it's just goodwin liu for thec
first outcome and it's my understanding that you would like to interview sure family, please proceed. >> thanks so much, senator feinstein. and thank you for the very generous introduction. i do have some family members here with me today. let me begin with my parents who are seated to my right. my parents came off away from sacramento, california, to be with me here again. seated behind me is my wife, my wonderful wife ann, who has made sacrifices to support me in this process. in her arms are our baby boy, imminent, who the last time you remember, he slipped through the whole thing. hopefully we'll have the same luck. [laughter] >> and then seated next to them is my daughter, violet, who turned four in a couple of weeks. she said she likes coming to these hearings. i say good for you, violet.
[laughter] >> so, i apologize if there's some sort of back and forth but i think it is now time for the kids. i'm also very fortunate that my wife's parents are also here. pamela and charles right behind my right shoulder. they came all the way from maine where they have lived for over 40 years. and i'm also joined by a cousin of mine who hails from salt lake city, utah, and another cousin who grew up in the chicago area. i would also like to recognizeña and thank the many friends and former students that i have herc today in hearing room, and also i want to give a special recognition and thanks to the members of congress who are here, judy chu, bobby scott, and i'm especially honored that secretary bill coleman has joined us. i have often thought a lot about bill in this process. is been a steady guide and mentor to me.l?(
>> actually. would you stand and from the oath? [witnesses were sworn in] >> i do. >> thank you very much. i want to ask you right off the bat about an issue that has caused considerable consternation among committee members. in 2006, you said in a testimony to this committee regarding the nomination of now justice alito. in your testimony you criticize a series of his decisions, but the real concern has been with the lengthy hypothetical at the end of your comments. i'd like to give you another chance to explain this so that the members hear your response. >> certainly, senator, i would be happy to address that and thank you for the opportunity. as you can imagine, senator feinstein, i have thought a lot about that testimony in this
process. and i'd like to acknowledge to you today, and to the merits of this committee, what i acknowledged last year in a written response to a question from senator kyl. and that is that i think that the last paragraph of that testimony was not an appropriate way to describe justice alito as a person or his legal views. i think the language that i used was unduly harsh. it was provocative and it was unnecessary because what it was was a summary and a shorthand of the few cases from the legal analysis, the pages that preceded that paragraph. and it also seemed to suggest that justice alito a endorse certain government practices as a public matter when effective he was only that those practices didn't violate the constitution. so, i think that i should have omitted that paragraph. and quite frankly, senator, i understand now much better than i did then that strongly which
like that is really not helpful in this process. if i had to do it over get i would have deleted it. and i just hope, try to get you any other members of the committee can read that statement in the context of the other parts of my record and hope that the other parts of my record show that i'm a more measured and thoughtful person and thaót single statement inñ= isolation might suggest. >> thank you. some have criticized your theory of constitutional fidelity forññ considering evolving norms and social understandings, along with the text, principle and precedent in interpreting the constitution. to me, those hues are wellñ within our constitutional>ñ mainstream. i think, for example, chiefññ justice john marshall who÷y famously said in 1819, we mustw; never forget this constitution we are expounding, this provision is made in the zynstitution, intended to endurç for ages to come.
and consequently, to be adopted -- is to become adapted to the in 1920 that the constitution must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not in her book, majesty of law, the bill of rights was drafted in tension in broad sweeping terms, allowing many to be developed in response to the changing times your theory of constitutional fidelity and how it is similar or different from the point of these justices were making? >> certainly, senator. let me answer your question by first making very clear that if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process, it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of constitutional interpretation to
the job of an intermediate appellate judge. the duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. and so that's exactly what i would do is i would apply the applicable precedent to the facts of each case. but to moderately address your say this. the notion of evolving norms is simply a reference, it's a way i describe how the supreme court has applied some of the text and principles of the constitution to specific cases and controversies. so in some instances the constitution text is very clear. for example, article iii says you need two witnesses to convict someone of treason, not one. so that's pretty clear. but in other parts of the constitution is not as precise. and so, for example, in 1961, the court confronted the question of whether a telephone wiretap falls within the fourth
amendments definition of unreasonable searches or seizures. and the court grappled with this because up to that point a physical trespass and the necessary to make out a search under the fourth amendment, but the court in 1961 says we'll abandon that requirement because there is now a societal expectation of privacy in telephone calls. and this is not just a matter of sort of recognizing new technology. it was a matter of recognizing the social norms that had grown up around using telephones. and so, when the book makes reference to evolving norms, it's just a way of describing how references to practices like that, how they inform the supreme court's elaboration of constitutional doctrine. >> thank you very much. senator grassley? >> professor liu, i will take off where the chairman just left off. you said during your last
hearing, and i quote, whatever i may have written in the books and the articles would have no bearing on my role as a judge, end of quote. i want to focus on that, as it relates to the book you co-authored, "keeping faith with the constitution." as you say in the book itself, your entire purpose is to propose and defend the theory of constitutional interpretation. so it is a bit typical for me to understand how you could, i will say it would have no bearing on how you would rule as a judge. so, my first question should be fairly easy, yes or no. today, do you still stand by your book "keeping faith with the constitution"? >> senator, i do stand by that book as an expression of my views as a scholar your but i recognize at the same time that the role of a scholar is very different than the role of a judge. and so were i can from to the ninth circuit i would be adopting the role of the judge which is not, as i was trying to
express, not to follow any particular theory that i might have, but rather i follow the instructions of the united states supreme court on matters of constitutional interpretation. >> are their arguments in the book that today he would disavow? >> senator, i haven't read through the book again. scholars to consider and reconsider their views, but also top of my head i can't think of any. >> in the book "keeping faith with the constitution" you turned your traditional philosophy as the chairman just said, one of constitutional fidelity. that phrase sounds nice but, of course, it only sounds nice until you learn what you mean by it. in the interview you gave to the american constitution society about the book, you explained in more detail your judicial philosophy. you said quote, our basic basis is the way the constitution is into word is through an ongoing
process of interpretation, and where that interpretation has succeeded, it is because of, not in spite of, fidelity to our written constitution. continuing to quote, and what we mean by fidelity is that the constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society, in every single generation, end quote. it seems to me that all you are doing is taking a judicial philosophy that has been largely rejected by the american people, and rebranding it into a new label. in your book you define a living constitution. this way quote, on this approach the constitution is understood to grow and evolve over time as conditions need and values of our society change, end of quote. so my question is, how is your definition of a living constitution different from your
theory of constitution of the fidelity which he described as interpreting the constitution in a way that adapt its principles and takes the challenges and conditions of our society in every single generation, end of quote? >> well, senator, what would try to do in the book is actually to reject the notion of a living constitution insofar as that label has come to stand for the idea that the constitution itself can sort of grow and evolve and morph into whatever a judge might want it to say. and that is something wrong. i mean, the constitution provides in article five the only process by which the text of the constitution can change. we absolutely respect that. but for the more i think the book fully respects the notion that the text of the constitution and the principles that it expresses are totally fixed and enduring. those things don't change either. the challenge i think the courts when they confront cases, new cases and conditions, is how to apply sometimes broad principles
to the specific facts of the case. and let me come in terms of this notion of adapting, let me offer one more example. last year the supreme court considered a case called city of ontario versus quantity or it was an interesting case about whether or not a public employee had a regional expert patient of privacy. in text messages that are separately government issued a cell phone. and the court interests and decline to decide the issue because it absurd that the dynamics of adjudication are changed, not just because we have new technology, but really because societies, expectations of privacy with respect to the new technology have not fully settled. and so the court said that workplace drones are evolving. and it's not clear yet what kind of expectations of privacy society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. and so this is just another example of how it is that you can call it involving norms or call it social conditions, inform the court's approach to the interpretation of certain constitutional provisions speak of my time is a.
madam chair become uncle died in and out today but i intend to return to ask more questions. >> all right, fine. thank you. here's the early bird order in franklin, lee, blumenthal, sessions and cornyn. so senator franken, you're up next. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. liu, i had the opportunity to speak to you in my office, and read your writings. i never do believe you're one of the finest minds of your generation, and i hope that we as a nation can be lucky enough to have you as a jurist and a public servant. what i think is remarkable about your nomination is not its strength but its diversity of support. a lot of people mention ken starr's letter supporting your nomination, and i'll get to that in a moment.
the one that caught my eye was a blog post that would've today from university of minnesota professor, richard painter. this guy is a great law professor. and he is no liberal. he works to support the confirmation of john roberts and samuel alito, and serve as president george w. bush's chief ethics officer. and anyone who has any doubt about your nomination should, i think, read this article. so, madam chair, with your permission, madam chair? with your permission i ask that arnold groped -- i ask that article be entered in the record. i would ask that richard painter, professor richard bennett at the university of minnesota, his blog post today be entered into the record.
>> so ordered. >> thank you. let me just read one little thing from it. liu's opponents have sought to demonize him as a radical extremists. however, for anyone who has as we read transformers writing, or watched his death would come it is clear that the attacks filled with polemics, caricature and hyperbole reveal very little about this exceptionally qualified measured and mainstream nominee. and i want everyone to think about that. this is a guy who participate in samuel alito's, and in chief justice roberts nomination. for the bush administration. and please, i ask anyone who is considering voting against this nominee to read this blog post, please. i ask my colleagues to do that.
let's talk about the letter from kenneth starr and from akhil amar. they write, what we wish to highlight beyond his obvious intellect and legal talents is his independence and openness to diversity as well as his ability to follow the facts in the law to their logical conclusion, whatever his political balance may be. professor amar and ken starr cite two examples to support your conclusion. one having to do with proposition eight with respect to that episode they write, goodwin knows the difference between what the law is and what he might wish it to become and he is fully capable and unafraid of discharging the duties to say what the law is. can you tell us about the events that led to kenneth starr, professor amar, what they were referring to? >> certainly, senator. thank you for the generous remarks.
so, as i understand it, the letter from president starr was referring to testimony that i gave before the state assembly and senate judiciary committees, the california state committees. what had happened in california was that the california supreme court had issued a ruling that had invalidated laws that restricted marriage to a man and a woman. and thereafter, the voters of california enacted initiatives, proposition eight, which sought to constitutionalize and it constitutionalize marriage between a man and a woman as the sole definition of marriage in california. anticipating a legal challenge to the initiative under state law, the assembly and senate judiciary committees held a hearing in which they invited me to testify as a neutral legal expert to assess the merits of the claims that many proponents
of invalidating were making that was an improper amendment of the constitution under the procedures prescribed by the constitution. and i testify that prop aid should be upheld under the applicable precedents that were in existence at the time. i did also right that the supreme court, california supreme court might have some reasons for revisiting that president. but under the optical president it was a straightforward case. straightforward in the sense that probably should be upheld and this wasn't i supposed a popular position with some of the advocates but it was i think a correct reading of the law. the california supreme court ultimately agreed. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you, madam chair,. >> thank you very much. senator lee, you are up next. >> thank you, and thank you, professor liu, for coming in and bring your family to join us today. i would like to talk about the commerce clause.
>> well, senator, i think they grappled with that in the gonzalez case where they were posed as to whether or not marijuana grown and used for medicinal purposes, purely within local boundaries qualified as a kind of activity that could be reached under the commerce clause. there the court made an accommodation. though this is noneconomic activity, it belongs to a class of economic activity. so i'm not sure exactly where that leaves us. but the rule that emerges seems to be that noneconomic activity that belongs to a class of economic activity is reachable under the commerce clause. i think the only point of the book was to subject that definitionally, these things like all distinctions in the law when you press very hard on them, there are gray edges on the distinctions.
but in the main, i think these are workable in the role that i would be filling if i were confirmed. >> in the wake of gonzalez versus raich, and setting aside for the a moment, the acceptions identified in lopez and morrison, can you identify the federal activity that exists outside of lopez and morrison? >> well, senator, it would be difficult for me to present a hypothetical given that one never knows when an issue will actually be litigated. let me try to answer your question by saying that my own understanding of this area beginning with one basic supposition which is the federal government is a government of limited power. the very enumeration of power predisposes the limit and makes it explicit. it says that all powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor
prohibited by the states are reserved to the states, respectedly. or to the people, and from madison to hamilton to the precedent of the courts, every one of the sources confirmed that basic proposition. so any judge that approached a commerce clause question would have to yield an answer to a problem that was consistent with that fundamental proposition of our system. >> okay. so getting back to the statement that the distinction between economic and noneconomic is drawn in lopez and morrison and ineffective and inefficient. is there some other way that you could have reached the same result without drawing the economic, noneconomic distinction? either as to bare noncommercial gun possession at lopez and acts of violence at morrison? >> i think the rules themselves provide some guideline to that.
as i recall, the lopez case was -- just simply did not indulge what it said was the sort of piling inference on inference and applying the substantial affects test of the doctrine. so part of the -- one way to read lopez, i suppose is to say that the court is simply unwilling to, you know, develop a chain of reasoning from mere possession of an article of commerce to be sure. but the mere possession itself is not economic. to the economic affects that were deposited by the dissent. that was too distance in the chain of linkages to get to a substantial affect. >> in a 2008 "standford law review" article, you wrote the problems for court is to determine at the moment of decision whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree, that they can be credit -- crystallized
and absorbed into the legal doctrine. how does the judge disconcern when and how the extent of the value has been persuasively crystallized so as to become part of the law? >> well, senator, i think that in some sense, i think that's kind of what i wrote there is unremarkable observation about the way the supreme court elaborates doctrines. just to go back to the fourth amendment examples i was providing earlier to senator feinstine, what constitutes the reasonable expectation. the court undertakes, i think, the objective analysis. it doesn't ask what they themselves think is the reasonable explanation. they ask what society thinks. i think the cases are clear that whether society has developed a legitimate or recognized a legitimate or reasonable expectation, and i think they look to whatever indicators that
they can in the practices, in the case of the text messages that i was describing. they look to certain practices of employers and employees and look to the case law in the state court and federal courts. and so this happens, i think, all over the constitutional jurisprudence, as e will be wil- as elaborated by the supreme court. this is sometimes in all observation about the way the court elaborates doctrine. >> i see my time has expired. we may be able to get back to that. >> thank you, senator lee. senator coons. >> thank you, professor, for being with us today i think for your remarkable record of public service and your outstanding academic preparation and your family's willingness to stand by you through this, i know long, process, and i'm grateful for the chance to have visited with you in person, reviewing your writings, and work, and spend
time with you in the hearings today. i think you would be capable jurist. we will be blessed to have you on the 9th circuit. some of the questions on the writing as an academic and how it would affect your work? rethinking welfare and constitutional rights. in that you wrote that fundamental rights can evolve over time. could you just lay out for me what role you believe the judiciary has in evolving or recognizing the revolution of fundamental rights over time? >> certainly. that article, i think, was really an article on two parts. the first half of the article is devoted to rejecting the idea that courts have really any rule in inventing rights in the social and economic realm. and that is very consistent the instructions of the supreme court in this area where in case after case the supreme court has
said that our constitution is a charter of negative liberties and not one of positive liberties. and i would faithfully and fully apply those precedence where i confirmed in the process. there's a limited judicial role in the rights that are created by statute. this is crucial difference that much of the article is actually directed at the notion that policymakers are really the ones in charge when it comes to this contested area. and that what courts do is on occasion, on limited occasion, they assess the legislature's -- they assess eligibility requirements or termination procedures against the dictates of the equal protection or due process clause. that judicial role too is supposed by precedence. those precedences remain on the books. the role that i propose is fully consistent with the state of the law as it is today and i feel
prepared to fully follow that law if i were confirmed as a judge. >> can you point to anything else in your scholarship to suggest that this has consistently been your view, that the role of the judiciary in recognizing the revolution is fairly limited and in many ways subservant to the policymakers or legislature role? >> absolutely. in many says my scholarship has been devoted to education, public education. as you know, and in another article in the "yale law journal" from 2006, i wrote again another piece that was education, but directed again at the legislature, at the policymakers with the important caveats in the front of the article that said i'm not contemplating any particular judicial role here. and, in fact, i acknowledge that the supreme court's decision in 1973 in the rodriguez case that was very much informed by principals of judicial restraint
was the basic approach that i was taking in that article recognizing that quotes have very, very limited capacity, and in some instance no capacity and no authority to wade into what are essentially political decisions. much of my writing has been centered on those very premise. >> let me ask if i could one last question, professor, about something else that's been the subject of some debate. what role does foreign law play in any judicial interpretation or domestic u.s. law? what sort of authority does it have? >> the answer is none, senator. the foreign law has no authority in our system unless american law requires it to have authority. so in the case of contract or treaty of some sort. so clarify that issue, there is one paragraph of writing in my record that acknowledges that
solutions for legal problems might come from other places in the world when they are common problems that constitutional democracies face. but i think all i meant by saying that was in the same way that judges look to treatus, and other ideas about how to approach matters that come before them, they might look to examples from other nation's too. there's a crucial distinction between that kind of information gathering to the extend it's informative, and the use of those sources as authority. no one would ever cite a law review article as legal authority that controls the certain proposition of law. i think the same exact rule applies to any foreign precedence or foreign law that a judge might look to. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator coburn. >> thank you, madam chairman. after the recommendation of our
chairman, i would like you to come down to my office and have a sit down. i promised the chairman that i would do that when your nomination was discussed in the lame duck. earlier today you said in your testimony that there's areas of the constitution that are very precise. so i have question for your article three section twoing the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity in laws of the united states and treaties made. is that precise to you? >> well, senator -- >> the idea of preciseness is an important definition here for me. >> certainly. i mean i think that article three section two contains with it an absolute requirement that judges decide only cases or controversies and they do not render advisory opinions. i think it's fairly explicit in the text of the constitutional and the provision that you read. >> the reason that i ask many
question, the chairman quoted you in terms of the state absolute fidelity in terms of the law, language, and statutes. and your statement that has caused difficulty is the following, the resistance to this practice in terms of referencing foreign law is difficult for me to grasp. i mean these are your words. since the united states can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions cased by constitutional democracies around the world. if you have an absolute fidelity to the law of the language in the statute, and this precise, how could anyone ever consider foreign law as a basis for the decision setting on the supreme court, or an appellate court. >> well, senator, the supreme court in this area, i think, has largely followed the general approach that they have looked to foreign law merely as confirmatory, or ideas how to approach the problem. i don't read as dictating those
sources have authority in the sense of legal, controlling, and binding authority and interpretation of u.s. law. it is certainly not my view that foreign law that has kind of authority. >> let me give you an example then. justice stevens in mcdonald versus chicago. the fact that our oldest allies found appropriate to regulate firearms that the right to possess a gun is fundamental to the life of liberty. do you believe there's merit to his argument? i mean he's now referencing foreign law in his defense of his position on that case. is that fidelity to the language, law, and statutes? and is that precise? >> well, senator, as i recall just stevens was in dissent. were i confirmed as the judge, i would follow the majority view. >> i know but again we have a
supreme court justice who is relying on foreign law. it's clear to this senator to want to know exactly where you are given the statement that you said it's difficult for you to grasp that people would have trouble with the utilization of foreign law. >> well, senator, even in justice stephen if i could recall, there's no sense in which the examples he gave, i don't have any view, because i can't recall it very clearly, of the merits of how he used his examples. but i would -- my point simply is i don't think that even in his opinion that he's citing those sources as dispositive, as i said, that a dissent. if i were confirmed as a judge, i would follow not only the holding in the supreme court in mcdonald versus the city of chicago, but one would have to follow the reasoning. that reasons is dispositive.
>> i submitted to rounds of questions following our other hearing. on many you failed to give my an answer. i'm going to run out of time, and i'm going to run out of time in this hearing to be able to do that. i look forward to meeting with you in my office to try to get to those answers. the other question that i want to go back to is your statement about judge alito. you've said today that you would not -- knowing what you know today, and experience that you've seen today, that you would not have included the last paragraph in your critique. is that a case of poor judgment? do you think? or is it just a case of lack of knowledge? and insight? >> senator, it was poor judgment. >> okay. mad dam -- madam chairman, i have seven seconds left and multitude of questions. i will try to do that in my office. >> thank you. and thank you for meeting with
him. it's very much appreciated. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, madam chairman, and professor liu, and most particularly to your family for being here today. i want to commend you for the success so far in your career. really a great american success story going to public school in sacramento, then to stanford, to oxford on a road scholarship, then to the yale law school and many years of teaching and for answering the questions today, difficult questions. so candidly and forthrightly, most especially your expression of regret for some of the comments that you made about then nominee justice alito. and i want to say about this process that i think that you are entitled to an up or down vote by the united states senate.
but i also feel that this scrutiny has been fair, searching and demanding, but i believe that this body has a responsibility to ask the kind of questions that you have been asked and i hope that you agree that the process is a fair one in that regard. and i want to really go to what i consider to be the central question for any judge on the united states court of appeals. which is where you would follow and particularly what you would follow if your personal views, whether in your past writings, or your present deeply held beliefs conflict with the rulings and decision of the united states supreme court. is there any doubt in your mind that you would follow faithfully and consistently the rulings and decisions of the united states supreme court? >> senator, there's no doubt in
my mind about that. in fact, i add that the approach that i've taken in my writings has been fairly consistently to acknowledge what the state of the law actually is, and then, of course, scholars are paid to critique it and to say other things about it. but it always begin, a clear acknowledgment of what the law is. so that is what i would follow. >> so on the question of school choice and busing, i know you've taken some stance that would indicate your support for a broad-based school choice initiative. and we may disagree about it, i'm not sure we do, even if we did, there's no question in your mind, even as a supporter of school choice, that you would follow the rulings of the united
states supreme court. >> absolutely, i would. >> to follow the question. if the united states supreme court were unclear, i think he may have used the word incoherent which they regard as being on certain issues. what would be your approach there? would you also look to what the combination of precedence from the united states supreme court and try to make the best sense and apply it what you saw it. >> that's exactly what one would do and one would have to do? >> i know that one the criticisms that i've seen having reviewed your previous testimony has related to racial quote -- racial quotas, i think you support with no foreseeable end point.
just so we are clear, do you support, and have you ever supported them? >> i absolutely do not, senator. >> and do you think that affirmative action plans should exist forever? >> no, i do not, senator. i think affirmative action as it was originally con received, it was time remedy for past wrongs. i think that's the appropriate way to understand what affirmative action is. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. i may have some additional questions. but again i want to thank you for your testimony. i'm greatly impressed by it and wish you well. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal, senator sessions. >> thank you, madam chairman. we don't have time to go into the kind of discussions that i guess we'd all like to. it's awfully difficult for senates for us to get prepared. i think to do all in all. you've gone through this before, you've answered written questions before, i just want to
know that you've had no real experience practicing the law or as a judge. only two years in private practice according one case, i think, on appeal, a pro bono case, but never having tried a case before a jury, you've apparently enabled professor, well liked, and in advance in academic world. i do believe that's a serious defect and lack in the law. that to me is a serious matter, no need to, i guess, argue about it or talk about it. it's something that i have to weigh in my judgment as to whether or not you could be on the court. secondly, from your writings, and i've been on this committee now 14 years, i consider them to be the most advanced statement of the judicial philosophy that
i've seen. i don't think there's anyone close to that. i think it's a little bit demonstration of some lack of sensitivity or maybe that you have no difficulty in talking around rather than direct contradictions in your writings and the positions that you are taking here in the committee on some of the questions. i don't think they are easily breached. with regard to the foreign law, you suggest that you are is not unusual view, but i would just suggest it's clearly from the statements that you -- the senator read -- it's clearly in accord with the most aggressive foreign law citations theories that i think are unacceptable.
before it mandates equal protection, it guarantees national citizenship, it's declared and nod protected. hoover, -- moreover, the guarantee does more than designate a legal status and obligations the national government and dignity of all citizens in the national community. this obligation, i argue, encompanies so that all children had equal citizenship for familiar seasons the constitutional guarantee of the national citizenship has never realized it's potential to be a
generative source of rights, closed quote. well, that's what it says. the words are plane. you've become the citizen of the united states. but to become generative of source of substantive rights to me takes it quite a bit further. it basically says the judge using those words can begin to evaluate political, social policies as you discuss in your article and begin to make decisions on those. because you are talking about substantive rights in the document to be found that judges can act upon. i give you and ask to you respond to that. don't you think that's a
unfeathering judge from the constitution? >> i'll try to address it in four points. first the article says nothing about a judge should do. the article is addressed to policymakers, and there's not a single sentence in that article that says that judges should use that language as a generative source of rights. secondly, the article acknowledged. >> who would find within that document a source of substantive rights. they don't use to use the clause to pass the welfare bill. my argument is nearly the subject is members of congress may. not that they have to, but they may. >> the constitutional provision provides, and is a potential source of substantive rights and i think that's clearly directed to the source.
>> senator, no, that is not my view. i think the article in the very beginning explained very clearly that avoid using the language of rights precisely because the rights in the judicial force which is something that i'm not interested in that article. if i may make a couple more points. if it is a bit hard for me to respond to, you mention there were contradictions between my record and testimony, specific instances i'd be happy to try to clarify. it's hard for me to respond. >> i'm telling you, i have to vote. i'm sort of the judge here. you know, we go through this. i have to evaluate what i'm hearing, and i just would subject to you that there are a number of contradictions in your written statements and your testimony and written answers to the committee's questions that i don't think are adequately
address the differences. >> it's hard for me to respond without knows what you have in mind. in terms of the gap in my experience, it's true my resumé is primarily scholar. i have spent a couple of years in practice under the likes of bill coleman, which i hope is a credit to me. but it's limited. i think i bring other strengths to the role of appellate judge. i think the role of a scholar has always been one of rigorous inquiry and fair consideration of arguments and counterarguments and the ability to listen well to all of difference sides. in terms of how i would approach the role, knowing that i have some gaps in my experience. i take some instruction from my own experience having clerked for an aplot judge who was not
on the district court before. and one thing that he always did was he always read the record of the case very, very carefully. and i think that, you know, the temptation that the appellate level because the issues are kind of cleaned up and neat is to just decide on the abstract matters of law. the instruction, i think, always was to look at the record, look at the record, look at the record, because it's important to understand how a case came up the line to the appeals process. i think that i would adopt the same approach if i would fortunate enough to be affirmed. >> just briefly, madam chairman, in that same article, you said it was directed only to policymakers. you use this language. you said in your words that the article was an attempt, a small
step towards ref formation of thought on how welfare rights might be recognized through constitutional adjudication. >> senator, i'm sorry for interpreting. there are two different articles in view. the 2008 "standford law review" article, and the legislative duty was from a 2006 "yale law" article. there's no reference. >> well, it is. you say it's a potential source to generate substantive rights. that can only mean by judge because the legislature can act on the matters without having to have the citizens clause of the constitution to authorize it. i'm over my time. madam chairman, thank you. >> note the generosity of the chairman. >> you were very generous. >> you're welcome. >> and i would say you are a
most able advocate from the judges from california that you believe in. i always respect your insight. >> i wish it did some good. senator cornyn. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. let me go back to the statements that were referred to earlier and the subject of your commentary about judge alito. just to read those for the record, i think it helps people understand both what you said and why there's concern about it. you said, quote, judge alito's record envisions an america are police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away are a stolen purse. where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid even after no sign of resistance, where the fbi may install a camera where you sleep
on the promise that it won't turn it on until informant is in the room, where a black man maybe sentenced to death by all white jury for killing a white man, showing discrimination, and where police may search where work permits and then some. this is not the america we know, nor is this the america we inspire to be. did i read that correctly? >> you did, senator. >> professor liu, this is the second time you had the nomination before the last time. april 6, 2010.
>> i can't remember the exact time. i think it was. >> do you know why your nomination was never called up on the floor of the senate? >> senator, i have read various press accounts of it, i have no direct knowledge, no. >> well, you are aware that under the senate rules the only person that could do that would be the majority leader, senator reed. >> i am aware of that, yes. >> you had a conversation with him or his staff about why he did not call your nomination up and have a vote of the united states senate on your nomination before it lapsed at the end of last congress? >> no, not on that subject, no. >> so, it's a mystery to you as to why you are having to go through this twice and you never had an opportunity for a vote on your previous nomination? >> well, senator, i wouldn't perhaps say mystery. i've read some press accounts of how vote decisions were determined in the end of the
session. as i've learned through the process, one can't always trust press accounts. but i have some ideas about it. >> well, you were denied a vote on your nomination last congress, correct? >> i was. >> and the only one that could have scheduled that would have been the majority leader senator harry reid; correct? >> i believe that's correct, yes. >> professor liu, you said quote there's no doubt that roberts has a legal mind, a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellectual. is that a correct quote? >> it is a correct quote. >> you would agree it should apply to you as well? >> absolutely, senator. i think the advice and consent process is in the constitution because it's one of the checks and balances in our system. before any judge assumes the
bench for life tenure, there ought to be a political check. yes, i agree with that. >> well, the difficulty that you are encountering with some of the members of the committee because you have such a comprehensive set of legal writings expressing opinions on everything from the death penalty to same sex marriage to what constituted welfare rights protected by u.s. constitution alike is that you are now saying that wipe the slate clean because none of that has any relevance to how i would conduct myself as a judge, if confirmed by the senate, is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. because my understanding of the role of the intermediate appellate judge in the hierarchy of the judicial system is to faithfully follow the instructions as the higher supreme court, as well as i
should add circuit precedence, i'm comfortable and confident says my scholarly views are not the ground on which i would base decisions if i were lucky enough to be confirmed. it is a different case, however, you mention what i wrote about the robert's nomination. it's a different case with respect to the united states supreme court, because there the justices applying the doctrine may if they find -- if they apply the test in that way overturn precedence. and that's simply not something that an interimmediate appellate judge has any authority to do. >> professor liu, as i believe i said at your last nomination hearing, i believe that you've led a remarkable life. you've accomplished a lot. you have a beautiful and supportive family. you have a lot to be grateful for. i know you are. that doesn't mean you are qualified to serve as a member of the federal judiciary.
and, in fact, your writings and previous testimony and statement which you now say represented bad judgment with reference to alito during your previous hearings raise questions about whether it is, whether you have the sort of temperament and the ability to set aside your strongly held academic and scholarly views and to be able to start over from scratch the problems that we have, we have five minute rounds to ask you questions, follow it up with written questions, and you have answered most of those, i believe. the difficulty is we know this theater sometime, where nominees come into the hearing room and they profess a nomination
conversion. in other words, their previously strongly held and very articulately stated views are inoperative, and we should not pay any attention to them. and we should take at your word your ability, maybe it's your hope, maybe it's your aspirations, but we need to know whether you have the ability and you actually will if confirmed as a judge do as you say you would do and set all of this aside and decide based strictly on the matter of precedent and fidelity to the constitution itself. we've had the sad experience just in the short time i've been in the senate where people come in and say the sorts of things that you are saying today about how to conduct themselves as a judge, but in practice, they have either been unable or unwilling to keep that promise. and that senate has no resource whatsoever sort of impeachment. which as you know is extraordinarily rare. so i want to explain to you, and i think we owe you in fairness
we owe you our candid views. we have accomplished a lot. you have a lot to be grateful for. i'm not convinced that this is the right job for you. with that, madam chairman i will -- >> thank you very much. before recognizing senator klobuchar i'd like to place in the record the statement of pat leahy, he refers to professor mcconnell. i'd like to quote one thing. professor mcdonnell's own writings included the advocacy for re-examining the first amount free exercise, the establishment clause,
jurisprudence, strong opposition to roe v. wade, and clinic access law, and testified that the violence against women is unconstitutional. his writings on the action of federal district court in accounting according protesters could not be read as in addition other than phrase for the extralegal behavior of the department and the judge. and he was confirmed and remembers on this side gave him the benefit of the doubt. >> madam chairman, i appreciate that. i don't dispute. i believe judge the did what he said. voting to confirm the nominee who doesn't do what they promise to do. and so that is the -- that's the quandary that we find ourselves in. >> well, i don't want to have a
back and forth. professor liu can be appointed and there's no way to measure he has said he would. >> again, thank you for allowing me to just briefly respond. we've had the experience in the case of the sport justice who came in in the case of the second amount and the right to keep and bare arms. said it was an individual right. and subsequently wrote a decision on the court and disavowed the very individual right that she claimed existed. that's my only point. i'm not disputing that professor may have the aspirations. he maybe making a good faith representation about his intentions, i'm saying that you can't ignore a body of legal scholarship of writing this like, expressing strongly held views about this and just take for granted that someone will be
able to completely ignore that in approaching our job as a judge. that's my only point, thank you. >> i will continue this discussion with you sometime. senator klobuchar. >> hello professor liu, welcome back. >> thank you. >> i think this is your second hearing, is that right? >> yes, it is. >> i remember talking with you then, and senator cornyn spoke about the five-minute rounds, you've had two hearings and made yourself available to meet with them in the their office; is that right? >> yes. >> i appreciate your flexibility about your ability to do this job. i stated the lindsey graham, you are more than qualified and what he expressed during the kagan
and sotomayor, and their understanding of the law and willingness to follow the law. i wanted to go back into what you said with senator cornyn was talking about, which is the difference, your work as a scholar. i think i mentioned before that i am a graduate of the united states of chicago law school, and i have seen judge easter brook and judge hosen as professors, and thought what they said in class wasn't what guided them as a judge when they had to apply the law. could you talk again about your view of the judge differing from a role of the advocate or scholar. >> certainly, thank you, senator klobuchar. i first want to just express that i appreciate senator cornyn's making transparent in his concerns about my nomination. i think they are fair concerned
to raise and discuss. i think this was robust and fair process. and it enables me an opportunity, i think, to clarify that in all of my academic writings, the role that i had was that of a commentator, as it were. what a scholar does is a scholar pokes and prods and critiques, scholar doesn't make much headway in the law schools by simply restating the law. and so that's why scholarship comes out the way it does. it comes out as critical and inventive and provocative. in fact, those are the very qualities that are rewarded in that professor. the role of the judge is very, very different. the role of the judge is fundamentally one of being faithful to the law as it is. and i think i recognize that that difference in the way i
approach scholarship which is to say that i understand what the law is first without grasping that essential foundation, one can't responsibly comment on it. right? and so if i am able to take one hat off and put a different hat on, the role simply changes, and the nature of how you approach cases changes. it's not that judge easterbrook or judge posner who has been an academic consults their own legal writings about what they thought as a matter of theory before deciding the case. no, what they do is they read the briefs and the record of the case and they confine themselves, discipline themselves to that process. because that is the process of judges. that is how i understand that difference. and that's how i'd approach the job. >> i also know there have been a lot of comments about writings and taking certain things you've said to try to demonstrate what
people think might be your judicial philosophy. you want to describe in your own words without just taking one sentence something that you wrote what your judicial philosophy is? >> sure, my judicial philosophy in a nutshell is i think the courts of the united states have a limited role in our system of government. it's limited because the members of the judiciary hold life tenure without electoral accountability and they are asked to review the substantive validity of democratically enacted statutes on occasion. so that is because we are fundamentally a democratic system, that's a role to be exercised very cautiously in a very restrained way. it's also however a very important role. because the judiciary, as hamilton told us long ago is important work against the tyranny of majority. and so we have protections in the constitution for various individual rights and entrust
the judiciary to enforce it precisely because they are insulated from the politics of the moment. it's a careful balancing act of all times. but in approaching the cases that would come before me, i would take my instruction from the united states supreme court in all of those cases. i think the court has in the main across the broad run of cases balanced those two important prerogatives. one the limitations of the judiciary, and secondly the important bulwark that tyranny serves in our company. >> thank you. if i could ask one more question. i missed the first round here. i wondered what you see my new job here as i'm going to heading up the courts subcommittee. what do you see as a greatest challenges facing the federal judiciary right now?
>> i feel it's presumptuous having not made it yet. >> you are trying hard. >> you know, i don't have any more thoughts than the layperson. i've paid attention because of my involvement. obviously, i've observed many claims made about the crushing case loads that have affected not just the 9th circuit, but many of the circuits around the country. and so, you know, that attests i think to the importance of this process and some of the challenges that you would face in the years to come. >> well, thank you very much. and again i just think about myself as the student in law school with the professor easterbrook and posner, and somehow they got through the committee and senate which had very ideological differences at
that time. i hope the same will happen with you, professor liu, you have great credentials. >> thank you. >> thank you, that completes the first round. i'd like to put some letters in the record. i understand that senator sessions has questions that he wishes. this is actually your third round. senator grassley -- well. why don't you go on? >> again, i'm a bit baffled. you talked just a moment ago about on judges showing restraint, that they are cautious, that they have a limited role. but i improperly quoted this
article a while ago. you corrected me rightly. this is an article on rethinking constitutional welfare. you talked about judges. and this is your writing about how you think judges should perform. quote, the historical development in binding character are by constitutional understanding demand a more complex explanations and conventional account of the courts as an independent socially detached decision makers that say what the law is. enduring task of the judiciary, you say, is to find a way to articulate constitutional law that the nation can accept as it's own. closed quote. well, first, i think the marvin
versus madison was the decision -- had the famous line that a judge's role is to say what the law is. but you go quite a bit further from that. and then in your writings and then when asked about it, you give a statement that justice scalia could give about the role of a judge. so i guess you -- doesn't this go far beyond what you just said? >> senator, i think that's the first time i've been accused of channeling justice scalia. >> well, it was a good statement. >> thank you, senator. >> but it's not consistent with, i think, what you wrote. >> well, senator, i don't recall. i'd be happy to look at the passage a little bit more carefully. >> i didn't misquote, i don't think. >> i think you quoted it accurately. i think the passage, if i recall it correctly, was trying to say that judges cannot decide cases, whether it's in that area, welfare rights or any other area on the bases of some independent
moral theory that they have about what people are entitled to if anything. and so that statement is part of an argument, i think, an article that says what judges have to do is they have to set aside their independent moral theories and not import them into the law. i think the supreme court has been absolutely clear in this particular area, the welfare rights area, there is that danger that judges unelected and unacceptable, based on their own conceptions of justice might try to write that into the law. i fully respect those precedence in that article. >> you know, you mention a while ago pretty easily, i thought, on the question of privacy, you said that, well, privacy is what society says it is, basically. how do you find that? well, you look to what sources that you can. but when you get away from the
respecting the limitations of the constitution and it's language, then you get into finding theories out here. do you do polling data to determine what rights are? or do we look to foreign law as justice stephens said? you said you look to foreign law to get what advice they get. it's our constitution that you are interesting the one that we adopted, not some foreign law. can you -- so doesn't that indicate to me and to all of us that your view is that a judge, indeed is free to reinterpret the meaning of the words of the constitution and advance what they consider to be an affect? some societal value, which is un ascertainable to a judge in a complete way. >> well, senator, on the fourth
amendment example, i was not actually giving my personal view about the subject. i was trying to express what the supreme court itself has said about the subject. and if i were an interimmediate appellate judge i would have to safely follow the standard of privacy, or legitimate expectation of privacy, as society recognizing it. which is the applicable standard in the law. >> i thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to have this explain enable a lawyer with a nimble mind and ability to articulate your position well. i would just say that i believe the reals you express in -- the values that you express in your writings indicate that you have a very activist view of the role of a judge. i think it would influence your decision making. i'm not unaware that the 9th circuit is considered to be the
most liberal. one year they reversed 27 out of 28 cases and "the new york times" wrote the 9th circuit was considered by a majority of the court as a rogue circuit. i am concerned about that. but i have no doubt of your goodwill, your skill, your leadership ability, your academic eighty, and you have a wonderful family. >> thank you. thank you, senator. >> senator grassley has turned. i know he has additional questions. senator blumenthal, do you have additional questions for this witness or? >> i do not, madam chairman, i yield to senator grassley. >> fine. and then i know we are keeping the other nominees quite a time. but we will try to be quick in your hearings. i think you've probably seen that this is a very interesting hearing for this particular candidate. >> madam chairman, i would offer
for the record of responding in this letter, professor painter's letter, that criticized some of his writings and he responds, i think effectively, to those criticisms. >> that was quick. right, it will go into the record. senator, would you like to take the floor? >> thank you. if we were to, let's just say, wipe the slate clean as to your academic writings and career, what is left to justify your confirmation? >> senator, i would hope that you wouldn't wipe my slate clean, as it were. you know, i am what i am. my resumé is a scholarly resume, and all i can say about that is that i appreciate the distinction between the roles. i think there are important facets of being a scholar that
are very beneficial to being a judge. the ability to have a broad knowledge of the law, the ability to see arguments and counterarguments and to be fair of those arguments and also the ability, frankly, to listen well to the litigants position and subject all of the arguments to the most rigorous scrutiny. i think all of those are transferable skills from one to the other. what is not transferable, absolutely, are the substantive views that one might take as a matter of legal theory. those are left. when one become the judge, one applies the law as it is to the facts of every case. >> you devoted an entire chapter in your book to defending the supreme court holdings in cases like roe and griswold and laurence. you described these cases collectively as quote broad constellation of individual decision making on intimate questions of family life,
sexuality, and preduction. end of quote. you argue and i quote further, the rights affirmed until the cases from griswold, laurence, enjoy widespread support and acceptance. they cannot be recognized with textualism, or originalism that asks how the framing generation would have resolved the precise issues, but they are holy consistent with an approach to constitutional interpretation that reads original commitments and contemporary social context together, the revolution of constitutional protection for individual autonomy in certain areas, reflect precisely the rich form of constitutional interpretation that this book envisions, end of quote so question, given that you argue these cases quote reflect precisely the rich form of
constitutional interpretation that this book envisions is it fair to say that these cases demonstrate fidelity to the constitution under your judicial philosophy. >> well, senator, those are cases that have been rendered by the united states supreme court. they are precedence of the court, and if i were confirmed as a judge, i would fully follow them. i don't think that there's -- in the writing, any -- it is a piece -- it is a -- what you read is a scholarly description. one scholarly description of a set of cases. and i'm sure there are scholars that would disagree. what all scholars would not disagree on, i think, however we might like to characterize those opinions is a matter of theory, which is what that is. the decisions speak for themselves in their own language and any judge would have to consult not my book, but those decisions themselves in applying
the law to the facts of any particular case. >> okay. your prior hearing, you responded to a question from senator cornyn by citing laurence as a case which the supreme court decided obvious foreign law because it was favorable to the majority opinion's decision. in doing so, did the court read original commitment and contemporary social context together, end of quote. >> senator, i'm not sure. and i'm not sure i understand the question. >> well, i can state it again. but it's pretty simple to me. we're trying to compare what you said about original commitments and contemporary social context. the extent to which laurence decision in your reliance upon foreign law was favorable to the majority opinions how that --
>> this will be my last question. we've had a host of liberal academics admitting that the role was largely invented. profession lawrence describe has written "one of the most curious things about role is behind its verbal smoke screen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." in 1985 justice ginsberg tribed the role as "difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved conflict." yale law profession kemmitt roosevelt said, "as constitutional argument, role is
barely coherent. the court pulled its right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether." ag bert, a former law clerk wrote, "as a matter of constitutional interpretation, even the most liberal jurisprudence if you administer truth serum tell you it's indispensable." we can go on and on. my question to you is this: do you believe it demonstrates constitutional fidelity? >> senator as press dent to the court it was affirmed in 1982 and as a precedent of the court it is entitled to the court and in the case of intermediate judge, if i were confirmed, that means it's a controlling case under the case law.
>> you're saying it demonstrates what you termed constitutional fidelity? >> senator, the supreme court has said it is an appropriate decision under the united states constitution and i'm obligated to respect that. >> thank you, professor liu. >> i know this is tough, and i want that thank you for your bright mind. i want to thank you for your sco last tick knowledge. i thought the answer to senator grass lee's last question shows courage of your views, and i thank you for that. i actually think you'll be fine, if you get there, a fine appellate court judge, and i think this is really hard because you see the polarization that exists. whether we can overcome it or not, i don't know. i hope members meet with you
separately. i was delighted to hear senators agreed to do so. that means a great deal to me. one of my concerns, and i just want to spell it out has been our few dish yarr is made up of the best we can get. the intellectual and legal giants of our time and that we not dumb it down. if you were able to make it, one thing i'm sure of is you will not dumb it down. thank you very much for being here, and you are now excused. >> thank you senator feinstein.
held a conference here in washington this week, and over the next 50 minutes, agency director general patric o'reilly lays out plans. also robert gates is in russia for events on the topic sharing launch information and a u.s.-russia joint data center. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. i had to be delayed a moment because we're not used to being so far ahead. i wanted to make sure we adjusted accordingly with the great group of speakers we have had today who came here to enlighten you on their thinking on current missile defense issues. first of all, i'd like to thank
aiwa for hosting this important conference with us this year. you may notice there's a significant participant in the past who is not with us this year. he's recently retired. the add mrgt retired, dave, if you don't know, we honored his services with the missile defense complex is titled the now, and it says it very prominently on our facilities there, the david m. altwig complex, so -- [applause] our thoughts and prayers and sincere gratitude go out to dave and his family, but that gratitude is also extended to admiral henderson, and greatly
appreciate how he stepped up and has done a great job. karen, thank you for the support. we could not do our integrated mission without it and the rest of the aerospace industry. first thing i'd like to state as you look at today's conference agenda and for the next couple days is we've taken a slightly different approach. in the beginning we've shown the technical complexity involved with executing missile defense, and if you look back over the 20-some years that several people in this room, me including, have been involveed in missile defense, you'll see major phases, and we'll talk about the phases over the next 10 years of developing missile defense, our phase-adapted approach. you'll notice it's not a european adapted approach, but
the phase-adaptive approach to be deployed as we build these capabilities to europe or to asia as secretary miller just mentioned or southwest asia. there may be many different letters in front of paa in the future, and that was the intent, but it takes the where with all of industry and the government team that's worked together so well. it's a phase of challenges we've met in the past and have to meet in the future. as you look at the phases of missile defense over the years, i know in the beginning looking at the enabling technologies and a lot of work was going on in laboratories. the national labs are prominent for awhile there, even say so as much as industry or more, and then we moved beyond that out to the ranges where we started building and testing prototypes, and that was in the 90s, and we moved to early acquisition. then we moved to production to a
large extent over the last decade of our initial systems, and where we are today is filling those initial systems. each step presents its own challenges as we go through fiscal environments, different policy views, world events have changed, tremendous world events have changed since the start of this agency, and it's forerunner agencies 28 years ago, 28 years ago, that'll be on wednesday. one thing that remains is that the dedication and the technology that -- and the absolute exceptional work done by industry and government in order to deliver capabilities, but as we look forward to the next 10 year, and that's what this conference is about, the complexities get even more complex, and just when you think that you know enough issues that could possibly be absorbed by a
government industry team that are technical, you get faced with the international issues and the diplomacy and operational issues of deploying systems, and that's where we are at today. without the close cooperation of the state department and osd policy, which i greatly appreciate dr. miller kicking off this briefing with, to our last speaker today which will be under secretary defense deputy ash carter speaking about the other challenges we have with buying power, affordability of the systems. there's a common theme. the theme is the threat is real. it's growing. it's more ever present now than it has been in the past, and the need for our capabilities and our capability of our allies and international partners and war fighters is growing, and i
believe we are doing the planning, but it will become apparent right off the bat that we need addition nare or a significant amount of help in this regard from industry. we plan to rely on that help and our international partners in our government agencies as you see expand and also congressment you'll have several speakers today from representing both parties in congress, and their view on missile defense. we're very pleased, and i'm very grateful that there is strong bipartisan support for missile defense in congress. there are always differing views. that's why we have a congress, and i'm glad there are differing views. i would be very worried if i was only given one perspective, and it does challenge us, and it should by our congressional staff and others on the
executive staff and the combat commanders. the need for missile defense, unfortunately, is growing. i wish that wasn't the case, but it is, and secretary miller said and showed there's a lot of complex issues we deal with on a daily basis. i want to thank you for what you do for missile defense. i want to thank my senior staff as the complexities have grown, i've noticed what the senior staff at nda has to do and the challenges have gotten much more complex just like if there's a keyword in this environment, it is complexity. what i would like to do is show the paa the vision of the paa. there's been a lot of discussion and a lot of focus on the phase-adaptive approach in the first phase and maybe the second phase, but you must understand what we're driving for is an overall comprehensive capability
by 2020. as secretary miller said, can that capability be accelerated? yes, it could. there are work going on today, continues to go on, contingencies are necessary, if so, what are they, and we are working through that as a department, as an executive branch and also presenting this to congress over the remainder of the spring, but i think what's really key is the world resiliency. we're going to deploy initial capability, but by 2020 when you see this unfold in the presentations you will see from me today and the other speakers, i hope you get a feeling that missile defense is moving from focusing on a single intercept, from a single threat from a single system to highly resilient systems with multiple shot opportunities with multiple
command and control, multi. centers and fire control centers in order to have a true reliance on the resiliency of the system, and that's what we're out to do over the next decade and the next four phases of our deployment strategy is to build that resiliency. i must say that even though we're focused on the initial phase in the near term, that really is not what the agency is overall focused on. it focused to a large extent on phase two, phase three, and phase four. i personally spent an awful lot of time on three and four, and so does the senior leadership. in order to get where we are showing you in the next nine years, there must be extensive amount of concentrated work resources, focus, and deliberation, and decisions made
on all four phases, and that is, in fact, happening as we speak. we are not starting one phase, waiting for the completion of the previous phase. all four phases are healthy and active at this point, and i'd like to show you those and give you the perspective of where we are going and where we will be in 2020 for that missile defense. next chart, please. first of all, the initial bmds. a lot of people said there's missile defense interpreters deployed already. we had a limited defensive capability for icbm, initial capability was declared by the president in 2004, and that was a limited capability. we were still building missile fields and will not complete our power plant and missile field construction until next year. at that point, we will have a fully fielded capability of the missile fields as envisioned for
fort greeley and the command and control and so forth. in the meantime, we do have capability, but it is limited. as you can see up there, we have our four based radars as shown in the film. the spx has been tested. the spx was challenged by a couple missile flights over the past 18 monthings, and i'm happy to say all the recent tests have shown that it's overcome those challenges and tiew to the complexity -- and due to the complexity again and you saw that from the threat signatures it saw, but it's done a fantastic job as of today. missile defense continues a successful string of interprets, and the system in israel just had another intercept a few weeks ago. the gmd system i'll say right up
front, we have two varieties of the system. the first generation worked in an outstanding fashion. three for three interprets, six total flights all successful, but as the industry team here knows we face obsolescence and in 2005 we started the modification and significant redesign of the kill vehicle, and those first two attempts were not successful. we have assembled the first one, i believe was in the area as focused on and reliability and always reminding me of the stringent tolerances that industry delivers these products, and we did very well of addressing that in the last flight test. i'm fully convinced the reliability issues were resolved, but we did uncover other issues in the latest flight, and we assembled what i believe is the best minds in
missile defense over the last couple decades focusing on a review board. i'm confident they've identified the design issues, and again, you hear the word complex. this is a very complex business. going through that, we'll confirm that we have identified the root cause, we'll confirm the fix. we may fly a flight test later this year without an interpret in order to ensure that we've driven the kill vehicle into regimes that normally wouldn't see to validate to us we resolved all issues, and went we'll repeat the flight test again. we don't back away from issues in missile defense, and we don't shy away from rigorous testing, and that's been a hallmark of this agency, and it's been a hallmark of the last year. we, again, as you can see, our early warning ray dorees, tuly came online up in greenland, an
outstanding effort. if there's ever a case of an industry team getting to the, it's to see how much cost and schedule improved every time we imprief an early warning radar. due to the hard work of nato and the contractor's associated and our government team, in our case led my ms. morgan, we've had a strong focus on that toe's -- nato's commit to defense and our active layer missile defense program is critical in deploying this year its initial capability to integrate its command and control from nato point of view to our command and control system so we have a full partnership. you see the globe at the bottom, that c2bmc, it would be very difficult to do this work without the national team and the great effort from others involved in battle management
and command and control. one thing that was, i believe, somewhat artificial, but again, it was done for instructive purposes of the simulation this morning was it showed what you may think was a complex threat environment, but what we look at is ten times that many missiles flying at any one time. to do that, you have to have a command and control system able to handle it. that is our vision. that is is our goal, our objectives to handle tens, if not hundreds of missile in the air at one time m unfortunately, the business is good. i wish it wasn't as far as the proliferation of missiles go, and we can't shy away from the reality of massive missile attacks and being able to defend it accurately. next chart. as you rotate a little bit around the world you again can see the four deployed radars.
there's one in south eastern europe. we're working with allies now on where to deploy it. the president committed it in southeastern europe by christmas. again, we're working very closely with the state department policy and european command, and you will hear from the deputy commander later on in the conference on all of the status of the deployment of missile defense in his theater. also, you will see a tipsi2 deployed in the region. what i noticed in the last couple years is the integrated activity of the missile defense industry, the industry teams, and combat and commanders who are at the state of the art deploying joint missile defense, and as said earlier, there's a strong demand, a tremendous demand on our missile defense assets by the commanders and
working closely with the joint staff, we are allocating those capabilities and as you can see by our budget requests and our program, it's intended to meet not only these capability increasing over the next several years, but also the capacity which means basically our up venn story. next chart. as we go around the world again, as jim miller mentioned before, our tipsy2 deemployed in japan. it did very well. the team over was were not affected by the recent events in japan. we're thankful for that. it is connected to the c2bmc in hawaii, and as said before, our ship, especially our surveillance capability in the sea of japan is shown here.
this is our initial capability. it shows one layer of defense in the three charts i've just shown. next chart. when we moved to 2015, our aim is to go from an initial capability to a robust capability. again, how do you define "robust?" there's not a clear definition, and i'll state what the agency adopted and in concert with the ballistic missile defense review conducted last year was one interpretation of robust, and it's ours is that when a missile's launched at you, you have opportunities to shoot it with multiple systems, independent technologies engaging that are integrated together through a center network again taking multiple views using multiple freak sighs so that --
frequencies to that is makes it very resilient capability, and by 2015 with the introduction of the sm32a, you can also see the introduction on the east coast of the united states, ipx data terminal, the communications system to gbi allowing us additional updates to gbi coming out of fort greeley and vanneddenberg -- vandenberg communicating with the missiles and data terminal. it will be upgraded, fourth of the early warning ray dares to have -- radars to have missile defense capability, and that mission has begun. also in 2015 in europe as you
can see the sm3 block 1b missile will be deployed. if you can think of it, the current version of the sm31a which is very successful, has a view such as a black and white camera would have. it's what we call single color. you'll have a multispectrum view of the threat with also some updated command and control, very precise attitude control system on board greatly enhancing our capabilities in order to discriminate the target sets it sees. very important, you can see a program moving along quickly all under contract. there's a lot of initial site work done for its first location in romania, and that will give us the critical capability, and not only that, it did interkept
low cases others can't. this system was chosen because it's part of the expanded logistical and training base and fore structure base of the u.s. navy. this turned out to be a very effective approach to expanding missile capability, at the same time, reducing cost tremendously by not having an independent terrestrial base and sea-base systems. the 401 and 50 systems adds capability because we can then launch sm31b missiles before the ships organic sensor can even see it, the spy-1 radar, and you can leverage down range sensors not only to cue the ship, but develop the fire control solution for the interpreter. what does that do? that significantly increases the
intercept below the ship, the ability to reach and interkept much earlier in flight missiles. you can see it's ready for material release later on this year to the army. we'll have four p -- units deploited at that point or ready for deployment in that area. as you've seen in our recent budget submit that the president made to congress, the number of forward base radars is to improve their capability and adaptability and resiliency. you can see the numbers we plan to procure have gone up dramatically, and we're up to 18 that will be procured between now and into the future of the 2015 timeframe. next chart. that then moves us to 2018, and
we have actually been working on a robust interimmediate range missile defense, threats between 3,000-5,000 kilometers. since five where we initiated the work with the japanese of the 2a missile, is a larger missile, still works in the system, but it now adds an additional nearly 100% increase in range of capability. as you can see, we are expanding our capability to intercept with one shot, have time to observe the success or failure of that intercept and replace it with the second missile and others fielded today, patriot and the command and control systems and fire control systems there. also, there's airborne infrared
>> from very long range, reentry vehicles, track them from space over their flight. we're working to integrate next year our first intercept using aegis and combining it with as ts. this is all predecessor work towards the completed development and deployment of the precision tracking system which will be an equatorial constellation as shown here. and cover over 50% of the earth permanently or continuously, persistently, in order to have complete, again, redundancy, resiliency in our ability to track very large range of sizes of missile. a few and our current architecture can handle one or
two missiles, but we're not expecting that. what we see, all the intelligence trends are large range of sizes, is something that a prudent defense architecture needs to not only understand but also embrace, and we've done that. our terrestrial system gives us that resiliency and redundancy in our sensor network. next chart. again the sm32a we also have the aegis ballistic missile defense system 51. that capability will not only allow us launching the sm32a and the 18 and the other systems, one b. launching them before they ship and see organically the missile itself, the threat missile. that's called launch on remote. that's in 2015. but in 2018 will be able to complete intercept without using
the organic sensor onboard the ship. that not only allows us to again have a very long range intercepts, but also to be able to put many interceptors in flight at one time in order to counter waves of missiles as they are being launched in that capacity, or in that manner. you can see the second aegis a sure site in poland will be deployed at that time. again, covering northern europe and getting a very robust coverage at that point up through intermediate range ballistic missiles. next chart. by 2020, we do with a combination of our sensor upgrade, ppss and the abr are, and the command-and-control networks show here, with the sm 30 to be which is a much higher philosophy interceptor, it's larger, still compatible to the navy, bls system, still
compatible with the aegis weapon system 51, the previous expansion nation of the fire control system. that will give us a capability to intercept missiles early in flight. we could launch these interceptors before burnout has been complete, and will have very early intercepts. our first intercept opportunity that really in the early stage, you have a great capability if you're within range, they are smaller missiles in the gbis, but if you are within range you have a good intercept opportunity early in flight with significantly adds again to the resiliency and redundancy against interceptor -- against threat missiles of all ranges, other than the very, very short missiles, range missiles but it gives us a capability what we have been searching for for over 30 years in this agency, and the
predecessor study. and that is to bring the battle, the missile-defense battle forward so that it is fought over the head, or at least in the region in which the missiles are originating from, not on the rear inside that we been dealing with over the past several decades. so this is our drug. this is our vision. is to be able to take the missile-defense battle, build our architecture, inherent resiliency to it and move the battle forward so that we're intercepting and killing missiles early in flight. next chart. >> and it shows the overall 20 system. as you can see again, we have a worldwide coverage, a seamless coverage. we are the integrated management control. by 2020 we need to be dealing with at least 50 missiles in the air at once as a minimum. i think that's a standard. the government evaluates industries work from that
perspective, and i think it's very important to understand, and i really hope that you feel proud of the contribution you're making. not only to today's initial capability which a state of state of the art and nonexistent in the past. you really are breaking the technical barriers with our intercept record of 45 out of 57 intercept, intercept tests in the last nine years. to the point of having this type of resiliency and redundancy and combatant commander effectiveness. next chart. so what i'd like to close with is what you will see over the next several days is a discussion of the day's adaptive approach to developing missile defense but as the president announced on 19 september, 2009, he described the european deployment as a phased adaptive approach. it is a face but i want to make
sure that it is key to being adaptable so that it can be deployed because it is one thing to assert is the uncertainty in the threat. especially the missile threat. and as we build capability that we expect to be operating in 2030 and beyond, trying to anticipate that threat is a challenge that i don't think anyone would be able to articulate what the answer is. and probably wouldn't be able to in point wi-fi. so adaptability, flexibility, and resiliency will be key. and hopefully this has been helpful in understanding the vision of the phased-adaptive approach, the challenge is there. there will be many. there's a lot of resources that are committed by congress and by our executive branch to be working on all four faces today. will there be a phase five? i would most shortly think there
would be. the adaptability is not only the placement of capability but it's also the maturation and technology as we learn. so again i'd like to close by, number one, thanking a i a. and the missile defense agency staff and everyone that has worked to set up this conference today. and also your participation and listening to the decision-makers that are involved in the decisions that i just discussed. and continue to debate it. and i'm glad they do. it is a highly, again complex changing environment, fiscal environment in daschle environment, international environment, it changes every day. and your active participation is not only appreciated, it's much-needed. so thank you very much for what you've accomplished and what we have set out today. i appreciate it.
thank you. [applause] >> sir, what is your plan to balance the antimissile capability soon to be able to include advanced tech news to defenses our state-of-the-art? >> don't you give me the answers? [laughter] >> well, it is about. and that is a key term. as i said, i look back on the last 20 some years. we were heavily focused in r&d in the first 10 years, and as we move to the point we have to take into account a combatant commanders are outgunned by ballistic missiles in every theater. and it is a dramatic need for that capability and that capacity of our current capability today. at the same time we can't lose sight of the need for
technological advancements. we have a very robust advanced technology pro-gram, over 300 projects that exist, as they typically are there are smaller projects in the beginning, in order to determine the feasibility, the vitality, of the ideas. but the concepts are extremely encouraging working very close. and i continue to work very close with academia and industry and the labs in order to ensure we are harnessing our best and brightest brainpower on future capabilities. i didn't mention directed energy but the directed energy team, the airborne laser testbed team previously the airborne laser program office is receiving an award today for their remarkable
achievement of shooting down to missiles last year with the directed energy. first time ever done with that class of missile at those ranges. and our commitment to directed energy is not back down. we continue to work with both the air force and also industry, directly and also with our national labs to expand our directed energy capability. directed energy is going to be critical to our ability to meet challenges such as this combination of objects. also meet challenges as destroying many missiles early in flight, as i said, simultaneously. so are advanced research effort, we will continue. and we are focusing it in a way that is, we are trying to align it. in fact, we are so that are advanced research projects are
reviewed, and the areas in which we are requesting work has been carefully aligned, carefully aligned now than in the past on specific issues that we need to address, again, as we are filling the missile-defense system. and working on these new technologies and new capabilities. so we are aligning, indeed, very much more specific on what exactly we need in the advanced technology areas in order to achieve the capabilities, as i said. at the same time we continue to invest in not only space systems such as the pts s., but also our directed energy systems. spoke along those lines, you've been speaking at universities in seeking to generate interest in engineering. can you tell us how such briefings have been received? >> they have been received as they should be icollege body,
usually the full gamut of the spectrum. there's a large embracing of the offers for people to come work in this area. we have a very active program. we had about 22 years ago, 20 interns, or what they call new entrants, recent college graduates in our agency. now that number is getting close to 400. so dramatic increase and outpouring of commitment of our young talent and bring power again. i am very excited about that. very appreciative of them very early in their careers, not only dhd's, but masters and a lot of baccalaureate. how good is the response been? been? i don't know on the recent class, but our first class that
we -- we bring them in about every six months of college applicants. we had 26 apply for every position. so i know i like to brag about it, but we decide what are going to do. because this will work for going to get any feedback from the young, new college graduates. and we were overwhelmed with the amount of response we received. so we started raising the grade point average as kind of an initial screen. we started at three points or. did nothing. 3.2, not even a day. 3.4, not much. 3.6, we point average just hard to see some of the applicants get screened out. it's been a very tough challenge for us. yes have an awful lot of people who have received their senior postgraduate degrees, and never in the cricket they make less than a 4.0.
so it really threw us for a loop. and it became very, very intensive for us to select these outstanding candidates that we have. and i know we have some in the audience today, but the outpouring from colleges across the country, i don't believe, there may be one or two states that haven't been represented, but university of washington state, for example, or washington state university, caltech, mit, you name it, it's been very, very impressive, the response. nebraska, auburn, georgia tech. it's very hard not to list a school that has not had. an unfortunate right now i literally have a card of schools to meet, requesting our engagement. and so, the outpouring from academia and from the recent college graduates are far
greater than i ever imagined. and again, i think the latest group we may have had 18 applicants, very highly qualified applicants for every position. and given that we had a relocation bracket of a larger workforce from washington to huntsville and colorado springs, the timing was very good for this. and we were able to offer a lot of positions. so i'm very pleased with it. and also with the research partnerships. we been able to form. and rich matt locke and his folks have done a great job informing research partnerships with faculty and postdocs working in an advanced research areas. >> are the traditional measures of program performance cost schedule and risk still valid today? >> i believe there more valid today than ever before. with the complexities of which we have seen in the environment
and in the technical challenges and so forth, it's very easy to get lost in all the details of the program. and you get back to the basics and we look for programs, how are they doing on meeting their original schedule, earned value management is important today in tools to understand real progress, as it has ever been. as i said, that incorporates the volume of work that has been planned out. i think the planning of our work needs to be focused by cost schedule and performance. in a very short answer, yes, it is as important, if not more important today, than it's ever been. >> the lions share of the systems, which has led to the sole-sourcing to a single contractor, how does india intend to bring in competition? >> competition is a commitment that came out of our
inefficiency reduce. and it's a commitment that this agency has initiated several years ago. that competition extends across the board to all systems. i can remember being told the gmb program would never be competed at it is being competed. i was told that our support contractors would not be competed on a wholesale basis. it was. and there is approval of a jna, that's a justification for sole-source contract, the merits have to be on schedule. and we do have a need as we have been showing for the combatant commanders demanding early capability of the aegis assure -- aegis ashore system to address this for. so we have assigned a. i approved a sole source justification because of the need to deploy this system very quickly, get it tested out in a
wide and it headed towards romania. but at the same time, as my staff knows, every time we approve a jna now that must be steps in their own concrete, concrete steps on how we're going to complete any subsequent content. so these jna's are not open any. and so the 30 aegis ashore site will be competed. but given the fact that when we are with the aegis and the government of the aegis system, it made a lot of economical sense, and it also, to make sure that the aegis system to reflects what i said before. capitalizing on the worldwide logistics systems for aegis, the training system, working very closely with the navy, they very adamantly wanted our ability for sailors to be trained and to be able on a ship, and be able to step right in into a aegis ashore site and require no
training. between base is identical for both. that's a tremendous force multiplier for the navy and for the deployment of our systems. so because of that, and the traceability that we want to build identical systems for aegis ashore as well as out and see or as close as technically possible, and the need for a very early deployment of this capability in the next four years, we went with a sole source decision. but at the same time in there are the provisions that allow us and enable us to compete it afterwards. and that follows along with every jna i have signed. those jna's have in there, and i've rejected them, unless they shows the concrete steps that are being taken so that subsequent contracts can affect be competed. >> has mda deferred efforts on
the missile boost phase more firmly, and along those lines what technology are you developing with regard to sophisticated decor is? >> well, first of all we have followed the recommendations of the 2002 defense sites forward study which has done very well. what i like about was it's pretty much done on first principles, and it showed the difficulties and challenges of a boost phase intercept. but also showed a dramatic benefits and a cheap ability of early intercept, which is prior to apogee and in some cases depend on the location of the multiple launcher system, the center network and the location of the launch very early intercept. and the ability to even intercept our launch interceptors prior to a missile burnout of the threat missile. which allows very early intercept capability.
that may not completely eradicate -- or eliminate the capability of countermeasures be deployed, but it does make it extra difficult. this agency flies countermeasures. we test them. we work with other agencies also, and countermeasures, you really want to deploy them at an optimal time for their flight information and doing exactly what they were intended to do. and you've really made difficult when you force somebody to deploy countermeasures when they don't want to. and that's one of the capabilities. as i mentioned earlier, directed energy. we continue to invest in directed energy. we really directed energy the speed of light. we now have the advantage. want to capability to clearly take multiple shots at a missile while it is continuing to boost, we've learned a lot from our intercept, our boost-phase intercept that we had last year about what those mechanisms
actually are. and they turned out to be extremely favorable. so, i believe that boost phase is something we all do it want to get too. but i'm very prudent. we are looking very carefully at the milestones and the technical objective. we think that's a right way to achieve this. don't oversell but don't undersell it either. and, therefore, we have a varied measured deliberate investment set pace by the technical achievements of our directed energy systems, which i do believe our ultimate capability to intercept large numbers of missiles boosting. >> there was a business case analysis last year that expanded, the capability. but it was not pursued. the extended range thaad still being considered? >> when we get these assessments, we will always have
the ability go back and look. but in that particular case when we were looking for the application of a thaad system, and i have a lot, a lot of knowledge of that inherent capability. again, expand thaad beyond what its original capability, its original mission, which is a fantastic capability against medium-range ballistic missiles, out to 3000 kilometers is its primary core capability, it can deploy anywhere in four hours. all of that mobility, and all of the investment there, when you look at the deployed architectures, joint architectures which are combatant commanders fight, and we don't imagine these fights occurring by themselves, we are a systems out there iso. in fact, i stated earlier the goal, the vision here is to have resiliency and redundancy, multiple shot opportunities.
so a core inherent capability of missile defense is our ability to combined joint systems. and when you look at the additional shot opportunities and the cost of investment of expanding thaad's capability to give it capability similar to, let's say, the sm31b when it is fully using all its kinematic capability, actually in the thaad study showed it would have that amount of capability, it costs us to reuse -- refocused market resources in other areas. what we did find was additional shot opportunity that's what it's all about. county times you have to intercept a missile in a joint architecture. and thaad, while it did give it greater capability, those centers were ones where thaad would be deployed primarily by itself. and that really isn't the doctrine that is being developed by our combatant commanders. again, we work closely with all
of them, and my staff is embedded in their staff. and we take that very seriously, the whole approach to joint army, navy, air force architectures when we deploy these systems. and that's what we make a business case assessments is where we going to get the largest return on investment. i.e., additional shot opportunities and the type of architectures which we expect to see deployed our combatant commanders. >> president obama's tour of latin america just to el salvador today.
>> there are only two rules in the senate. i said, what is that, boy, i want to get the inside word. he said exhaustion and unanimous consent. [laughter] and if you get the senators exhausted enough, they will unanimously agree to anything. and i said, i've got it. >> watch the panel on senate reform tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> tonight live on c-span, a discussion about the future of journalism with abc world news
anchor diane sawyer here in washington d.c. live coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> beginning april 1st and throughout the month, we'll feature the top winners of this year's student cam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries on the theme, "washington, d.c. through my lens." focusing on a topic that better helped them understand the role of the government. watch the winning videos and meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos anytime online at studentcam.org. >> treasury secretary tim geithner told the house appropriations committee that u.s. national security and influence is at stake as congress considers his agency's budget request for international programs. the treasury department has requested $3.4 billion, a 58% increase over 2010 levels. this appropriations subcommittee
hearing is about 90 minutes. >> the subcommittee on state foreign operations and related programs will come to order. i'd like to welcome secretary geithner and thank him for appearing before the subcommittee today to discuss the fiscal year 2012 request for the department of treasury's international programs. additionally, i'd like to hear about the current status of the international monetary fund given the large level of funding approved by the congress two years ago. secretary geithner, i know treasury's international programs are ones you worked on for many years before becoming secretary. i hope you'll provide the committee with your insight so we can better understand this large request for fiscal year 2012. the president's budget includes
$3.4 billion for treasury's international affairs programs which is 1.2 billion or 53% over the enacted 2010 levels. i'd also like to highlight that this is more than a doubling of funds since 2009 and more than 150% increase since 2008. all of these funds are contributions to international financial institutions with the exception of the treasury technical assistance and bilateral debt relief programs. last year i asked that you justify the need for such a large increase for multilateral assistance during an economic crisis here at home. this year the fiscal situation is even more dire. the united states is facing record budget deficits, the president's fiscal commission released it report calling for freezing or cutting discretionary spending. i know i don't have to remind you that we're all facing a very different budget situation than last year.
support for increases to the multilateral development banks was already in doubt before this budget was formulated. now this administration is requesting almost $2 billion in appropriations and putting the u.s. taxpayer on the hook for another 40 billion in potential liabilities. mr. secretary, this committee never consented to these capital increases. authorization bills are needed for each bank spelling out specific reforms and possibly withholding funds until forms are met. i can't support writing a blank check to these institutions, and we talked about that earlier. large multiyear capital increases and other global commitments will be extremely difficult to justify without convincing evidence that taxpayer dollars will be used in a more effective and transparent manner than they've been in the past. mr. secretary, i can predict that this subcommittee will face very difficult choices this year. we'll have to look at each
request to determine what is critical to our national security. we we must prioritize spending by looking at what works, what is good oversight and what is not duplicated elsewhere. i urge you to approach the subcommittee with your request in that context today and as the year progresses. finally, i want to mention the unique role the treasury department plays in u.s. foreign policy. your work to administer sanctions against countries like iran and libya and attract terrorist financing is critical. members will want to hear your comments on these important matters, i'm sure. thank you, and i look forward to your testimony. afterwards -- after my esteemed ranking member, mrs. lowy, gives her remarks, i'll call on chairman rogers if he's here, and then i'll call on members based on seniority and who was in attendance when hearing was called to order.
aisle alter -- i'll alternate between majority and minority, and i'll now turn to mrs. lowy. >> thank you. secretary geithner, i join chairwoman granger in welcoming you, my former constituent, to discuss the president's request for the president's international programs. thirty years ago president reagan affirmed that international financial institutions, and i quote, have contributed enormously to the spread of hope of a better life throughout the world community. they have been inspired by the ideal of the far better world in which economic growth and development would spread to all parts of the globe. for more than three decades, they have worked towards these goals and contributed to results that are now clearly visible to all, end quote. those words still hold true today. multilateral development banks reflect our fundamental values, support our economic interests by lowering trade and investment
barriers supporting private sector growth, opening the markets of tomorrow and giving people a chance to succeed. over the past decade, the world bank has built over 73,000 miles of roads, constructed and renovated 23,000 health facilities, saved 13 million lives, immunized 310 million children, provided water to 177 million people, brought better education to over 100 million children each year and established more transparent and open systems to fight corruption and build strong government institutions in developing countries. these investments both acleeveuate suffering and play a vital role in helping countries to build trade capacity and become reliable economic partners. i'm pleased the president requested $3.4 billion for international financial institutions, climate change
funds, food security initiatives, debt relief and technical assistance. this request is an acknowledgment of the importance of these institutions in promoting economic growth and stability and protecting our national security interests. the continuing resolution recently passed by the house, on the other hand, cut their funding to fiscal year 2008 levels. i hope you'll share with us what these substantial cuts would mean for economic growth, infrastructure development, health care, education as well as the impact on front line countries such as pakistan and afghanistan. in addition, your insight on the impact of scaling back the u.s. contribution to these institutions on our ability to influence lending decisions would be helpful. the c.r. also contains significant cuts to the international funds that address
climate change and the environment. as well as to the treasury department's technical assistance and debt restructuring budget. i hope you can describe the effect these cuts will have on developing countries and, in turn, on the united states. while i continue to support the work of the world bank, i remain troubled by the bank's interaction with iran. i would like to hear details about the treasury department's efforts to prevent loans to iran and to insure that the bank complies with united nations sanctions. the world bank group simply cannot reengage with iran if it is to maintain credibility and future u.s. support. in these tough economic times, international financial institutions and multilateral development funds seem like an easy target for budget cuts. but by supporting emerging economies, addressing widespread health and education challenges,
building infrastructure we are creating business opportunities for american companies. these programs are directly related to our primary focus of creating jobs and should not be on the chopping block. thank you again for your service, i look forward to your testimony. >> mr. secretary, please, feel free to summarize your remarks. without objection, your full statement will be submitted for the record. >> thank you. thank you, chairwoman granger, ranking member lowey, members of the committee. i know this is a heavy lift. at a time when we have unemployment above 9%. i think about one in eight americans on food stamps, an economy still living with the scars of the damage caused by the crisis. this is a hard case to make, and can i want to just say i appreciate the difficulty of it, and i appreciate the care and attention you're giving these issues. and i appreciate, madam
chairman, the attention you have given and will continue to give to the importance of the conditions we attach to these institutions. we have an obligation to make sure every dollar we ask the american taxpayer to put up in investments has the highest possible 'em pact on returns -- impact on returns. let me just summarize as quickly as i can. i want to begin with just an example from 20 years ago. a little more than 20 years ago secretary james baker came before this committee and requested both a general capital increase for the world bank and replenishment of the international development association, ida, and like now, that request came at a very difficult time, a very difficult budget environment. but let me just quote what he said then. he said, quote, if we fail to support our own programs and ignore or delay meeting our international commitments, the damage to u.s. national and
economic security may be vast. and he added, that harm will not be easily undone. now, most people tend to think of these institutions in terms of their humanitarian mission; fighting disease, fighting poverty, the broad development imperative. and that's right, and you're right to draw attention to that. but you also need to think of these institutions as a vital part of any effective american strategy in protecting our national security interests and expanding opportunities for american businesses. secretary gates has spoken eloquently of the this challenge as has general petraeus, and i think the simplest way to say it is where american soldiers are now engaged in combat, our ability to get those governments to take on more responsibility for their own security will depend on their success in creating a functioning economy that can generate not just opportunities for the citizens, but the resources they need to defend their security. and that requires institutions
that can establish and enforce the rule of law, protect property rights, allow businesses to funk, provide education, etc. so as you think about the humanitarian imperative, remember the national security imperative, and remember that these institutions are some of the most effective ways we can, we have available to advance that core american interest. but it's also important to recognize that these institutions are among and have been over time among the most effective export programs we have. they have been as instrumental in reducing trade barriers and providing a more level playing field creating opportunities for american businesses as the trade agreements we've negotiated. congress is going to have the opportunity to vote on a very powerful trade union with korea and other countries in the coming months. but remember, these institutions at the world bank and others have played an enormously effective role and in the future will play a role in making sure u.s. companies face more opportunities in these markets. and remember that as well. now, as you know, of course,
like in the united states governments around the world are reducing spending and reducing deficits, and this is necessary, and it is difficult, it is hard, but the real challenge is designing ways to reduce deficits that do not undermine our economic and our national security interests. and the real challenge in shaping effective deficit reduction strategies is how to do that and preserve critical investments in things that have the greatest impact on our core interests as a country. and i want you to just take a moment and look to the example you have in what the conservative governments in the united kingdom and germany, just to cite two examples. united kingdom, that government proposed to cut their deficit by eight percentage points as a share of gdp over the coming years and at the same time to increase the investments they make in foreign assistance by about 50%. and they do that from a base that is already three times relative the size of their economy what we provide in the united states. germany as well.
very ambitious program for bringing fiscal responsibility, making sure they're living within their means, is also proposing to maintain, in some ways increase their foreign assistance investments. they're doing that for the same reason we have to be careful in doing that, because, you know, we live in a dangerous world. the world's not standing still. other countries like china are ready to fill the, any vacuum left by, um, by a receding america. and we have to take a very careful look when we're going to cut back things like this to make sure we're not undermining our core interest. now, these institutions are not perfect. they've made mistakes in the past, and i'm sure they'll make mistakes in the future, but they're the most cost effective and are much better at results than almost any of the other development plans out there. and they have much more impact on bringing about reforms in reducing corruption, better property rights than we're able
to do on our own in many cases. now, we are the united states, and we meet our obligations, we meet our commitments. and, of course, this budget request includes commitments made by our predecessors and by your predecessors. and if we fall behind on those commitments, we will lose influence, and we will deprive the institutions of the resources they need to carry out things that are critically important to americans. again, if we limit the resources available to the world bank and these institutions, we'll leave many governments with no choice but to return to countries like china who will tie their loans to conditions that help advance chinese commercial interests rather than the prodder interests -- broader interests we face and enjoy with a more level playing field. again, i know many of you have the experience of traveling in asia and latin america, and you're seeing a dramatic expansion in the scale and scope of activity on the development side by countries like china. the world is watching the
budgeting of the united states not just to see whether washington's going to find a way on a bipartisan basis to make sure we're living within our means, but they want to see how smart we are in how we get there and whether as we reduce our deficits we preserve the ability to play an active role in expanding opportunities for american companies on american terms. now, you're going to hear advice from lots of people, and i'm grateful i have a chance to make the case myself. but as you listen to the administration, you listen to your colleagues, you listen to the business community, listen to secretary gates, listen to general petraeus, and i want to leave you with one quote from another gates, from bill dates. if you'll just give me one sec, i'll just read this to you. this is a man who has put a good fraction of his personal wealth behind this cause today, and he said, i am a big supporter of development assistance because i am convinced that the improvement in human welfare per dollar is far higher on this money than on any other dollar
the u.s. government spends. and remember, these institutions are 5% of the 150 account. but they leverage resources that equal 1.5 times the entire 150 account. and every dollar we put into a capital increase for the world bank, for example, leverages $25. there is no more effective means, no more effective form of leverage at a time of limited resources than the commitments we're asking you to support through these institutions. i'd be happy to take your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and we've been joined by ranking member dix. mr. dix, do you have opening remarks? >> yeah. i just have a very brief statement. thank you. secretary geithner, i join with chairwoman granger and ranking member lowey in welcoming you. this may be my first state foreign operations hearing. i am not new to the issues surrounding national security. the international financial institution's debt relief and
technical assistance programs make up the treasury department's international programs fiscal year 2012 budget requests are critical to supporting our national security and our economic stability. i hope today that you will, and as you have, addressed the urgent global challenges facing the united states such as food security, climate change as well as support for development assistance to the world's forests. working to reduce the enormous suffering around the globe is neither a liberal nor a conservative cause. it is a human cause, and it is very simply the right thing to do. bill gates was in my office yesterday, and he has held meetings here in washington where he has pointed out the importance. you can't do this all with philanthropy. now when congress is discussing budget cuts, it seems that nobody in congress likes foreign aid, especially funding to multilaterals, international financial institutions. generally, our constituents back home do not see the impact has
such assistance has on job production. yet u.s. involvement in financial institutions significantly advances opportunities for u.s. companies in the developing markets. additionally, with the vast security concerns faced in the u.s. especially during crisis like those we face throughout northern africa, the middle east, afghanistan and pakistan, investment in the form of multilateral development is crucial to addressing the root causes of conflict. preventing instability, improving economics and sustaining peace. it sevens our fundamental values -- serves our fundamental values as well as our economic interests by lowering trade and investment barriers, supporting private sector growth and giving people a second chance. and i would just say, also, that to my colleagues on the republican side, i honestly believe that the cuts we are making are too severe and that we need to have a compromise.
and i worry about the economic recovery. i worry about the situation we face with the state and local governments w the rising -- with the rising fuel prices and then these cuts in discretionary domestic spending. and defense. i was chairman of the committee with bill young, we put this together ourselves. so i'm worried about the, not only what these -- the damage that's going to be done, but also the economic consequences right here at home. i mean, my old economics teacher used to say when you want to lower the deficit, you put people back to work so that you create jobs and businesses prosper, there's more demand, and that takes down the deficit. we're just doing the opposite of that, and i worry that it's going to have a negative economic impact. thank you. >> thank you, mr. dix. i'll begin this round of questions, and i'm going to hold myself to five minutes. we've got jim colby's hourglass that has five minutes each, and so we'll watch that carefully.
we also have two votes are coming up just any minute. they're 15 minutes each. what i'm going to suggest we wait as long as we possibly can, and then we adjourn. i know your time is very valuable. if you'll stay, we'll make our two votes, come right back and finish because i know we've got lots of questions. i'm going to start with following up on what mrs. lowey was talking about, about the subject of iran ask sanctions. president obama, as you know, signed into law a stronger iran sanctions act last july that requires the secretary of the treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining of accounts to foreign financial institutions that he finds knowingly engage in certain activities. why is the treasury department failed to sanction foreign banks that continue to work with sanctioned iranian entities in violation of u.s. law? is it your belief that no foreign banks are conducting
business with sanctioned iranian entities in violation of u.s. law? >> a very important question, i'm glad you raised it. let me tell you what's happened. you referred to one critical thing which is congress passed and the president signed a very, very strong additional sanctions regime. but in addition to that we've been successful in getting the european authorities and countries around the world o put in much tougher regimes too. and as a result, relative to when i was before you last time, we have made substantial further progress in if convincing other countries to stop their institutions -- banks and others -- from doing business with the sanction entities we've been pursuing. and that's making it much harder for the government of iran to do the things we're trying to stop them from doing. this is something you have to be relentless about. you can never stop because every time you stop one avenue of raising finance, they're going to try and find a way around that. so you have to relentlessly work to try to expand the network of
constraints, and we are working very, very hard to do that. and identify got a terrific -- i've got a terrific group of colleagues with much more support internationally than we have had in a long period of time. >> i would support your relentlessness. i have one question as long as i've got, the international monetary fund. the fiscal year 2010 omnibus include a number of conditions on the use of funds for the new arrangements to borrow. my question is, could you give us an update on the n.a.b. operation? is it functional? the has it made loans? >> let me just step back and say why did we ask congress to do that, and it's the same reason why we're here before you today. as for these additional capital increases for the world bank and other institutions. in the crisis with our encouragement and support these institutions dramatically increased the financing they were provided for trade finance, things like that, at a time when the crisis was accelerating. and if you look at a graph of
the crisis, you find that the exchange rates of emerging economies fell off the cliff against the dollar. trade finance stopped, export growth stopped globally, and, of course, the world fell into a terrible recession. and what this support for the imf, the world banks and others, and you can just see it on a chart. by putting resources available out there, they helped arrest the fallen exports, bring those exchange rates back, and growth started to come with that. because those institutions did that, they created a substantial hole in the financial capacity, and can that's why we're here before you today to ask for some replenishment m for those institutions so that their lending capacity in the future doesn't fall dramatically because of the cost of the crisis. again, what they did was hugely important. the one reason why u.s. exports have led the recovery in the united states, not just in agriculture, but in high-tech and manufacturing, is because of those programs now. >> thank you. >> in the imf we don't, it's not activated until all the other countries put up their money. and if not mistaken, we can send
you a list of who else is signed up and who's still behind. but no dollar of u.s. money goes -- is on the table until the agreement is activated and enough countries have come forward. and i'd be happy to give you an update on that exact list. what the imf is doing is its core mission which is for countries in crisis that face some financing requirement, what it does is it provides, puts loans on the table, they pay interest, but they come with tough conditions to help make sure the countries are getting their act together, not just taking advantage -- >> let me interrupt you because you're on my time, and i have to stay to five minutes. given that, what you just said, countries that are in trouble, there is a fear that the n.a.b. could be used as a european bailout fund. i know that the imf has committed $40 billion to greece and 30 billion to ireland, and it'll pay a third of the cost of the one trillion used. so address that and tell me how -- is that true?
>> you're exactly right. as part of those financial programs that are there as a necessary way to help those countries bring about their reforms, although the europeans are putting the bulk of the resources on the table, the imf which does exist to give their members access to financing is providing a small share, you know, a share of the financing, roughly a third. but again, this is what the core imf mission has been from the beginning which is where members have financial problems for, on tough conditions, they can get access to that money. but in this case the europeans are carrying the bulk of the burden. as they should. >> thank you very much. mrs. lowey? >> thank you. i'll talk fast. as we strive to foster greater stability and security overseas, we face pressing domestic needs. it is critical to leverage every cent of taxpayer dollars and demonstrate it is spent effectively and efficiently. can you tell the committee what funding levels equal to 2008 mean for the asian development
fund, the international development association, the global environmental facility, the international fund for agricultural development, and how would 2008 levels effect the ability of the united states to meet its commitments to global debt relief efforts? in the five minutes, just do the best you can. >> well, in fact, various precautions -- varies across institutions, but the core effect are two. in some cases, if congress does not authorize and appropriate the funds, then the institution, the capital -- will not go forward, and they will have to cut its lending level very substantially because of that. that's true in the case, for example, of the inter-american development bank. in oh cases if we don't -- in other cases if we don't provide authorization, other countries move forward. we fall behind china and india and the asian development bank, and it makes no sense for us to put ourselves in that position. the most populace region of the
world growing faster than anywhere else, the biggest opportunities for american businesses, and the greatest risk that other countries are going to take advantage of a receding united states. so it's very important across these institutions, again, that we meet the commitments we make because if we don't, we'll lose influence, cede those markets to other countries and deprive the institutions of doing things that are critically important to americans. >> thank you. mr. dent. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, as you know, billions of dollars of assistance have been provided over the past four decades by the world bank and other regional banks, yet economic development has eluded many of the recipient countries. while there are many reasons, as you know, there are concerns that the governing elite in many companies benefit either directly or indirectly from foreign assistance. now we're faced with a request
to expand the capital base of four of the banks by two billion over the next five year. could you explain the plan to bring authorizations for these capital increases before the congress so that they can be debated, and ask will such bills include reforms for the banks and benchmarks that must be met before these funds could be released? >> >> absolutely, and thank you for raising that question. let me explain how we do this as a country and as a government, and this is the way we've done it over time. republican administrations, democratic administrations. so what we do is when we face a compelling need for a financial replenishment, we consult with the congress, we determine the conditions we would attach to such a replenishment. we negotiate those conditions. they are, in effect, legislated by the institutions. and the capital does not happen until or unless those conditions are in place and operational.
and that's the tradition that we adhere to, and it's very important people understand that because just like these institutions don't lend money to countries without conditions, we don't support these replenishments without conditions that require reform and improving the institutions themselves. now, over time congress has approached the question about authorization language different ways. sometimes it's carried on appropriation bills, sometimes it's done separately. what matters is that it happens, and we, of course, will work with your counterparts on the authority -- authorized committees to make sure we have language that reflects those reform bees. we want to make sure the institution understand we will not be there unless these reforms are operational. >> in my remaining time, i've examined a request before the committee for capital increases to the multilateral development banks, and i can't imagine that this committee would support writing blank checks to any of these institutions. as you know, these banks need reforms in many areas, but
specifically in their internal judicial systems which are not always as impartial when investigating charges of fraud, corruption and waste by various whistleblowers. there was an example with an american development bank that according to the press they immediately dismissed a contract officer in if haiti when that person raised the idea of possible fraud in haiti reconstruction contracts. at a minimum, what is being done with the banks including the idb to insure that oversight offices are impartial and management does not retaliate against internal charges of corruption? >> thank you for raising it, i'm very concerned about the same thick. we would never ask you to write a blank check. again, the resources we're prepared to provide come with conditions that we negotiate and make enforceable on the institutions to make sure they are doing a better job not just being efficient, but they have the best standards for internal control that we can. and we are working very hard
with the management to make sure where there are problems, that those cases we address them. not just in that case, in the idb, but across institutions. what i would try to draw your attention to, and you can look to other people, not just me. if you look at the standards those institutions set for internal controls and safeguards, they are dramatically better than they have been, our reforms will make them significantly better, and i would hold them against almost any other program for development assistance. and, again, you can talk to, you can look to bill gates and others for evidence of this. but people who spend their lives in this business will tell you that the standards they have in place in those institutions are not just better than they were a decade or two decades ago, but they are dramatically better than the standard that exists for other development programs. be 'em p.m. ..
worldwide and prevented the target governments as casting this as a foreign plot to weaken muslims. we need to remain mindful of this moving forward, but we also can't afford to let the moment slip by without doing everything in our power to help with the trap cigs to democracy. there's a concentration of wealth in the hands of very few and the corruption that gave rise to the revolutions is still in play. in unaddressed, they will give rice to other protests down the road. they told me there are two thing the the u.s. can do to help them if the country is to be reborn. the first is to help locate and repatriot money eluded by the benali family and the cronies. i hope weave involved in that
and what we're doing to assist in that regard. this goes for egypt as well. the second issue is debt forgiveness. tiew -- tunisia's debt stood at $16.9 billion. it's not eligible formal heavily indebted poor country initiative or the multilateral debt relief initiative. are there other mechanisms we can work to cancel some part of tunisia's debt to allow the new government to redirect resources towards job creation and grow democracy and prevent the radical islam? >> thank you for raising that appointment. yes, of course, we're closely involved working with other countries in trying to make sure we are aggressive and effective in making sure we can see --
seize assets we need to seize for the benefit of the countries. you saw us move forcefully and quickly with respect to libya, and we are having the most effective regime and sanctions as any country in the world as we demonstrate in this context. in tunisia and egypt in general, of course, it's very important as we think about how best to support the political transition in the way we recognize that those governments, those new governments are going to face enormous economic challenges, very short term challenges because the crisis they are going through and the effect any economy, but also long term reform challenges to make sure there's more opportunities for the citizens. as part of that, we work closely with other regions in the country to make sure we can provide the support that's most effective in that context. we'll look at everything including the specific thing you referred to, but at this stage, we are still trying to assess
what's most helpful. one thing i can tell you for sure is like anywhere around the world, we're going to have to turn to institutions like the world bank because they are going to have more resources than the pipeline able to mobilize more quickly, again, better leverage for every dollar we're exposed to, and a better capacity to make sure the assistance comes with reforms to help advance the objecteddives you're referring to -- objectives you referred to. >> on the debt forgiveness and ability to track down the lewding of the countries, and thank you for your testimony today. >> we'll get back as quickly as we can.
[no audio] [no audio] >> we fixed the technical problem, and now we'll take you to vice president joe biden today talking about graduation rates at the american promise alliance. >> when speaking to the leaders of the business community in my state over the last couple decades, i hear a lot of legitimate concerns and complaints about taxes, corporate taxes, about environmental regulations, the deaf silt, the ability to depreciate equipment, but the thing i've heard most consistently, not just in the last five years, but in the last 15 years is that most of you need more skilled workers.
i remember being chairman of the judiciary committee with h1v visas three years ago, there were close to 175,000 jobs for computer programmers and people with degrees in computer science that paid an average of $90,000 a year, and we didn't have the bodies to fill those slots. imagine what we could do if we took $90,000 a year jobs and sprinkled them in every i inner city in america automatically giving people in that community the capacity to do that job. it could be transformative, transformative, so i know you don't have to take my word for this. today the gate's foundation survey of business leaders is being released and it said a lot
of things. i'll read one quote from it. "more than 53% of business leaders say their companies face a fairly major challenge in recruiting nonmanager employees with skills, training, and education to meet their company's needs." we shouldn't look at this just a problem, but an incredible opportunity. it's important for the nation that we change this circumstance. that's why the president and i have set a clear goal. by 2020, america once again will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. we have no other choice. [applause] this cannot merely be an aspiration. this is a necessity. this is a necessity. my wife at this very moment is teaching part of her 15 credits
that she teaches has a great expression, any nation that outeducates us will outcompete us. what do we think? how do we think it's possible to lead the world in the 21st century as we did in the 20th without a significant change? right now, 40% of adults have a degree. in order to beat that goal, we have to raise that to 60% of young adults having completed a college degree. that's a significant task, and we should not stop there once we've met that goal. the bottom line is that in the next eight years, we need to produce 8 million more college graduates, 8 million more than we're producing now, an additional 1 million a year in order to meet the goal of 2020.
we expect that 5 million of these to be community college graduates, and that's why we're investing to increase community college, not only to help students get there, but to increase the quality of the education that they get at community college, the curriculum there. this is not your father's community college anymore. it's a different deal, a different tale, and it's the best buy in america. like i said, if you doubt that, just ask my wife. she will tell you. look, let's get something else straight. the single best predictor of successful college completion, no with standing the myths out this is no family income -- is not family income, parental education, it is not race, although you can trace it back
to high school arguably on that. what is it? it's how academically rigorous a student's high school curriculum is. one of the things i hope we're finally by the notion of dumbing down, dumbing down what we think the most challenged neighborhoods, the most challenged students are capable of doing. i remember all the way back to 1985 when i was doing work in the senate on this, and they did a study of those who dropped out of school in watts. it was from 1974 to, i think, 84. we went back and interviewed the folks contrary of dropping out of high school, and they asked what is the one thing that would have made the most difference? overwhelmingly the answer is if
i had been challenged more. they expected more of me. my mother had an expression, god rest her soul, that i think is proven tore true. i hear her say it to her friends and say it to me when she was over 80 years old. children tend to become that what you expect of them. children tend to become that what you expect of them. we should expect more, but deliver more as you are fighting to do to get high school curriculum to a point that, in fact, people are literally equipped when graduating. i was at a high school yesterday in womennington -- wilmington, delaware, and i was at a historic black high school,
first black high school in 1967 in my state. you walked in the classrooms, these kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods were learning about quantum physics. they have the capacity to learn. in fact, they have the personnel to teach them and the will to persist. arnie the best chance of giving our students the opportunities is to challenge them the most. i won't take about it today, but that's why we're focused on race to the top to not only increase the opportunity for children, but the academic rigor in the schools which they attend. there's another problem you all know we need to face. we need to make college more financially accessible and more affordable. [applause] let's face it. [applause]
i like some of you, one of those kids who almost didn't get to college because we couldn't afford to go, we couldn't afford to borrow from the bank. we were able to get, in those days, you got a summer job, you could make money at minimum wage to pay for what was then -- [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]
you out there with kids in college who didn't graduate in debt with a greater debt than the mortgage on your first house. seriously. it's an incredible burden. that's why we're also, we've capped monthly federal student loan payments at 10 pakistani of income so borrowers are not crushed by debt after they graduate, and we locked these things in. [applause] we locked these things in the tax deal we made in the lame duck session, so we're doing a lot to make sure that cost isn't
a barrier to america's advancement. our commitment doesn't stop there. as important as it is to get the kids in college, we need to complete their studies going back to being prepared. right now, students receive an advanced degree within two years, but less than half of these students earn a certificate or degree within six years of enrollment. we've got an education system that works more like a funnel than it does like a pipeline, and we set a goal. the highest percentage of college graduated by 2020. today, we're releasing a strategy that allows us to meet that goal. we call it the college completion tool kit. we work hard with a lot of you and experts all across america on this so-called tool kit. president obama and i are calling on each governor, each
governor in america, all 50, the whole college complietion summits to implement the strategies, even ones we haven't thought of, secretary duncan and the entire education team are ready to get in a plane and go to the individual summits to governor's homes to be help as we can be. this tool kit, this tool kit lays out seven no cost and low cost suggestions to get this job done. a couple examples on how these strategies work here, and that have worked. high schools have standardses with college expectations. sounds simple. with the standards that requires to graduate from those schools, exit standards, with a minimum college standards that are existing in that state to get to
a university, to get to a community college. 40% of college students shouldn't have to take remedial classes in college. 40% take remedial classes in college, and how many of you when you do the interview to hire someone administer a writing test and are astounded by the inability of folks to write? it shouldn't be. because it makes college more expensive, bus it take -- because it takes more time to finish, increases the likelihood students will drop out of college. look, make it easier. another strategy, make it easier for students to transfer. two out of three students transfer at least once. arizona, for example, helps ensure transfer students don't fall through the cracks by making sure introductory course
credits transfer among all the public colleges in that state. that means you have to set a minimum standard. follow tennessee and ohio and state education higher funding for levels of improvement in college completion. it's about product. right now, colleges get funded based on enrollment numbers, not and success numbers. universities must also inmoo vat, and to encourage them to do so, we're announcing today a separate program, a grant program rewarding colleges and universities that make innovative changes like they can propose summer academic boot camps between high school and college and embrace online learning, emergency financial aid because a lot of kids end up dropping out because their car breaks down as they commute or something happens at the home to help students complete college. [applause] these grants will be awarded
this year. we don't expect them to solve all the problems, but we want to encourage innovation. in our budget for 2012, we're also proposing to create what we call a college completion incentive grants. i love all these names. they confuse the hell out of all the people in the neighborhood i grew up in. [laughter] i'll translate it to simple language. we want to reward states, reward individual universities and colleges that demonstrates success in increasing completion rates. one more thing because community colleges are so critical to meeting our goals and they are the best buy out there, we're going to award grants to community colleges who come forward with specific plans to boost completion. we're also getting this money with no new taxes. we're getting this money from the $60 billion we saved by not
subsidizing student loans through banks. look, folks -- [applause] look, folks, we have to increase college completion rates. it's just simple as that. it's not real complicated. it's hard to do, but the concept is not complicated to grasp. when president obama and i talk about leading the world in percentage of college graduates, it's not about winning bragging rights. it's about ensuring that every child in this country has the ability to reach his or her poarnl, and that's the only way, the only way america is going to reach its potential. what do we think the rest of the world is doing? what do we think the rest of the world is doing? are they cutting back on access like our republicans friends want? do they think they're not investing more? do they think that china and india and every other competitor we have doesn't understand that
it is the key to their success to be able to compete? if we don't do this, kiss good-bye leading in the 21st century. if we give every child no matter where they are, where they live, no matter who their parents are the opportunity and set high goals and give the resources to accomplish it, then everything else will fall in line. i sound like it's easy. you know how difficult it is. their dreams and their skills are going to lead to allowing you to be able to produce new industries, spawn new businesses, create new jobs, and create an economic future this nation needs, so i'm basically here to say thank you. you're among the most informed people in the country. your the people who know what makes this economy run. you know the free enterprise, the oxygen to the companies to
fuel is the intellectual resource that this nation provides, and it has to be higher competitive advantage tan, that fuel -- competitiveoctane. you know how the system works, you know what you need. make it clear to everybody back in your states, cities, and your towns, make it clear to democrats and republicans that this is good business. this is good business. this is good, good for america's security. this is good in -- there's nothing more critical, so, folks, again, i just want to say thank you. god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. thank you very much, and thank you, alma. [applause]